People of the Philippines vs. Rosauro

In prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under R.A. No. 9165, non-compliance with the physical inventory and photographing requirements of Section 21 does not invalidate the seizure or render the items inadmissible where the prosecution establishes an unbroken chain of custody and preserves the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. The elements of illegal sale—(1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the drug and payment therefor—must be proved with moral certainty, including the identity of the corpus delicti as the same substance offered in evidence.

Based on unconfirmed reports dated October 13, 2002, that Eric Rosauro was habitually selling and distributing illegal drugs in Villanueva, Misamis Oriental, the Provincial Drug Enforcement Unit conducted a test-buy operation using a confidential agent. The agent successfully purchased shabu from Rosauro, which subsequently tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. On July 3, 2004, police authorities received fresh information that drug distribution was ongoing at Purok 3, Barangay Poblacion, prompting the Provincial Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Unit to organize a buy-bust operation utilizing the same confidential informant as a poseur-buyer.

• The Buy-Bust Operation: On July 3, 2004, at approximately 5:30 p.m., elements of the Provincial Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Unit (PAID-SOTU) led by SPO4 Lorenzo Larot and PO3 Juancho Dizon positioned themselves in the house of a confidential agent at Purok 3, Barangay Poblacion, Villanueva, Misamis Oriental. The team observed accused-appellant Eric Rosauro negotiate with the confidential informant, who acted as a poseur-buyer. Rosauro handed one sachet of shabu to the informant in exchange for a marked ₱100 bill bearing serial number YZ7 12579.
• The Arrest and Seizure: Immediately after the transaction was consummated, Larot and Dizon emerged from their hiding place and arrested Rosauro. The confidential informant turned over the purchased sachet to SPO4 Larot, who taped the sachet, marked it "Exhibit A," and placed it inside his pocket. Larot photographed Rosauro and the seized drugs. At the police station, Larot prepared a Certificate of Inventory and a Request for Laboratory Examination. Both the drugs and Rosauro were subsequently turned over to the Crime Laboratory.
• Laboratory Examination: Police Chief Inspector Ma. Leocy Mag-abo, Forensic Chemical Officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory, conducted examinations on the contents of the sachet, the accused-appellant's person, and the marked money. The seized item tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), while the accused-appellant and the marked money tested positive for the presence of ultra-violet fluorescent powder.
• Defense of Instigation: Rosauro testified that he was merely a victim of instigation. He alleged that the police asset visited his house four times on the day of the arrest to convince him to run an errand. He claimed he initially refused to buy shabu because he did not know where to procure it, but the informant instructed him to purchase from a certain "Kael" and provided the money. Rosauro asserted that he never met Kael directly; instead, a young man handed him the shabu on the road. Upon delivering the item to the informant's house, he was arrested. He contended that the sachet was recovered from the informant, not from him.

• Defense of Instigation: Petitioner maintained that his arrest resulted from instigation, not entrapment. He argued that the police asset repeatedly visited his residence and convinced him to purchase drugs from a third party, furnishing him with the buy-bust money, thereby inducing him to commit a crime he would not otherwise have committed.
• Failure to Prove Corpus Delicti: Petitioner argued that the prosecution failed to establish the identity and integrity of the seized drug as the corpus delicti, claiming the sachet was recovered from the confidential informant rather than from him.
• Non-Compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165: Petitioner contended that the apprehending team failed to comply with the statutory safeguards under Section 21, particularly the requirement to conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused, his counsel, a representative from the media, the Department of Justice, and an elected public official, thereby breaking the chain of custody.

• Valid Entrapment: Respondent countered that the operation was a legitimate entrapment, not instigation. The police acted on prior intelligence that Rosauro was habitually dealing in illegal drugs, and the buy-bust merely furnished evidence of this course of conduct without inducing him to commit the crime.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Respondent argued that all elements of illegal sale were proven: the identity of Rosauro as the seller and the informant as the buyer, the object (shabu), the consideration (marked money), and the delivery of the drug in exchange for payment.
• Non-Presentation of Informant: Respondent maintained that the non-presentation of the confidential informant was not fatal to the prosecution, as the testimony of the apprehending officers who witnessed the transaction was sufficient to establish the sale.
• Integrity of Evidence: Respondent asserted that the chain of custody was sufficiently established. The seized item was marked immediately by SPO4 Larot, inventoried at the police station, submitted for laboratory examination, and positively identified in court as the same item seized from Rosauro.

• Entrapment vs. Instigation: Whether the buy-bust operation constituted valid entrapment or illegal instigation.
• Presentation of Confidential Informant: Whether the failure to present the confidential informant as a witness is fatal to the prosecution.
• Proof of Corpus Delicti: Whether the prosecution proved the identity and integrity of the seized drug as the corpus delicti.
• Compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165: Whether strict compliance with the physical inventory and photographing requirements under Section 21 is essential to establish the chain of custody.

• Entrapment vs. Instigation: The operation was a valid entrapment. The police utilized a "decoy solicitation" based on prior intelligence that Rosauro habitually sold drugs. The solicitation merely furnished evidence of a course of conduct, and there was no showing that the informant induced Rosauro to sell drugs. Citing People v. Bartolome, it is no defense that facilities for the commission of the crime were purposely placed in the accused's way or that the act was done at the solicitation of persons seeking to expose the criminal.
• Presentation of Confidential Informant: The non-presentation of the confidential informant is not indispensable to the prosecution's success. As a rule, informants are not presented for security reasons to protect them from retaliation. Their testimony is required only when absolutely essential to secure a conviction. Here, the buy-bust was witnessed by SPO4 Larot and PO3 Dizon, whose testimonies adequately established the transaction.
• Proof of Corpus Delicti: The prosecution sufficiently established the corpus delicti. The seized item was marked immediately after the arrest, inventoried, submitted for laboratory examination where it tested positive for shabu, and positively identified in open court by SPO4 Larot as the same item seized from Rosauro. The marked money and Rosauro's person also tested positive for ultra-violet fluorescent powder, corroborating the transaction.
• Compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165: Strict compliance with the physical inventory and photographing requirements of Section 21 is not mandatory to establish a valid chain of custody. While the chain should ideally be perfect, it is "almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain." Non-compliance under justifiable grounds does not render the seizure void or the items inadmissible, provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The apprehending officers established the chain from seizure to courtroom testimony, ensuring the integrity of the evidence.

• Entrapment vs. Instigation — Entrapment involves trapping and capturing a criminal in flagrante delicto, whereas instigation occurs when the accused is induced to commit the crime. It is no defense that facilities for the commission were placed in the accused's way or that the act was done at "decoy solicitation" of persons seeking to expose the criminal, particularly where the offense is habitually committed. The Court applied this to reject Rosauro's claim of instigation, finding the police merely provided an opportunity to commit a crime he habitually engaged in.
• Presentation of Confidential Informant — The presentation of a confidential informant is not indispensable in drug prosecution cases. As a rule, informants are not presented for security reasons to protect them from retaliation by the culprit. Their testimony is required only when absolutely essential to secure a conviction. The testimony of apprehending officers who witnessed the transaction may suffice.
• Chain of Custody in Drug Cases — While Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 mandates specific procedures for inventory and photographing of seized drugs, strict compliance is not mandatory. Non-compliance under justifiable grounds does not invalidate the seizure or render the evidence inadmissible, provided the prosecution establishes an unbroken chain of custody demonstrating the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. The chain is established not solely by compliance with inventory requirements but by showing that the item seized is the same item offered in court.

• "It is no defense to the perpetrator of a crime that facilities for its commission were purposely placed in his way, or that the criminal act was done at the 'decoy solicitation' of persons seeking to expose the criminal, or that detectives feigning complicity in the act were present and apparently assisting its commission. Especially is this true in that class of cases where the office is one habitually committed, and the solicitation merely furnishes evidence of a course of conduct."
• "Similarly, the presentation of an informant as witness is not regarded as indispensable to the success of a prosecution of a drug-dealing accused. As a rule, the informant is not presented in court for security reasons, in view of the need to protect the informant from the retaliation of the culprit arrested through his efforts."
• "While the chain of custody should ideally be perfect, in reality it is 'almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.' The most important factor is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as they will be used to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused."

• People v. Bartolome, G.R. No. 191726, February 6, 2013 — Controlling precedent distinguishing entrapment from instigation; established that "decoy solicitation" is valid where the offense is habitually committed.
• People v. Torres, G.R. No. 191730, June 5, 2013 — Cited for the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs and the principle that the identity of the prohibited drug must be proved with moral certainty as the corpus delicti.
• People v. Loks, G.R. No. 203433, November 27, 2013 — Cited for the rule that non-compliance with Section 21 inventory requirements does not render seized items inadmissible if integrity is preserved.
• People v. Vasquez, G.R. No. 200304, January 15, 2014 — Cited for the principle that factual findings of the trial court and appellate court are binding on the Supreme Court absent arbitrariness or palpable error.

• Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) — Defines and penalizes the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, carrying a penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine of ₱500,000.00 to ₱10,000,000.00 regardless of quantity and purity.
• Section 21, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 — Mandates the custody and disposition of confiscated dangerous drugs, requiring immediate physical inventory and photographing in the presence of the accused, his representative or counsel, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official.
• Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 — Provides that non-compliance with Section 21 requirements under justifiable grounds, provided the integrity and evidentiary value of seized items are preserved, shall not render void and invalid such seizures.

Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno (Chief Justice), Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Lucas P. Bersamin, and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe.