People of the Philippines vs. Wilton Alacdis

In illegal sale of dangerous drugs, delivery of the drug to the poseur-buyer and receipt of the marked money by the seller consummate the transaction; without consideration, conviction for illegal sale cannot stand, but the accused may still be convicted of illegal delivery and transportation under Section 5, Article II, RA 9165, which requires only that the accused knowingly passed possession of a dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, by any means, without authority, and with or without consideration.

Wilton Alacdis y Anatil a.k.a. Welton, Domingo Lingbanan, and Pepito Anatil Alacdis were charged under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, for the illegal sale, delivery, and transport of dried marijuana leaves. The PDEA-CAR acted on intelligence that Lingbanan and Alacdis were engaged in illegal drug sale in the region. RA 9165 penalizes the sale, delivery, and transportation of dangerous drugs, and defines delivery as knowingly passing a dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, by any means, with or without consideration.

In the first week of April 2008, SP04 Marquez Madlon of the Itogon, Benguet Municipal Police Office received information from a confidential informant that Domingo Lingbanan and Pepito Anatil Alacdis were engaged in the illegal sale of drugs in the region. SP04 Madlon relayed the intelligence report to Police Chief Inspector Edgar S. Apalla, Officer-in-Charge of PDEA-CAR. In the second week of April 2008, SP04 Madlon and the confidential informant went to the PDEA-CAR Office, where it was planned that the informant would introduce SP02 Cabily J. Agbayani as a buyer of dried marijuana.

On April 21, 2008, SP02 Agbayani and the confidential informant met Lingbanan and Alacdis at Kinudayan Restaurant, Kilometer 6, La Trinidad, Benguet. The informant introduced SP02 Agbayani as a prospective big-time buyer from Tarlac. SP02 Agbayani offered to buy two kilos of marijuana to test its quality and purity, and Lingbanan and Alacdis agreed; because they did not have stocks at that time, they agreed to keep in touch. On May 3, 2008, Lingbanan and Alacdis contacted SP02 Agbayani and told him he could pick up the two kilos in Baguio City. SP02 Agbayani paid PhP4,000 for the two kilos at the covered court of the Baguio State University. Before leaving, he told Lingbanan and Alacdis that he would buy more marijuana if the two kilos turned out to be of good quality.

The following day, Alacdis called SP02 Agbayani and asked if the quality of the marijuana was up to his standard. SP02 Agbayani said it was and offered to buy 110 kilos of marijuana for PhP150,000. Lingbanan and Alacdis counter-offered to deliver only 107 kilos for the said amount, to which SP02 Agbayani agreed. On May 5, 2008, Lingbanan contacted SP02 Agbayani to ask if he was willing to come to Baguio City to pick up the 107 kilos of marijuana. SP02 Agbayani agreed and informed PCI Apalla, who formed a buy-bust team as back-up.

On May 6, 2008, the transaction was set at Rizal Park, Baguio City. At around 10:00 a.m., SP02 Agbayani received a message from Lingbanan and Alacdis that there was a sudden change of plans and that they were sending accused-appellant to deliver the marijuana. In a few minutes, accused-appellant arrived and was recognized by the confidential informant as the brother of Alacdis. The confidential informant approached accused-appellant and again introduced SP02 Agbayani as the big-time buyer of marijuana from Tarlac City. Accused-appellant told them that he had to go to La Trinidad, Benguet to pick up the marijuana and would be back within an hour. At around 11:00 a.m., Lingbanan called SP02 Agbayani and told him that the stocks of marijuana were inside a taxi already on its way to Rizal Park. Accused-appellant arrived and informed SP02 Agbayani that the marijuana was still inside the taxi. SP02 Agbayani asked to be shown the goods first before he gave the money. Accused-appellant instructed the taxi driver to open the back of the taxi, where several cartons were placed. SP02 Agbayani could smell the marijuana. Accused-appellant opened one carton in front of SP02 Agbayani, who saw several marijuana bricks inside. SP02 Agbayani gave the pre-arranged signal by removing his bull cap, and the back-up team rushed to the scene and arrested accused-appellant and the taxi driver, Danny Sison. The police confiscated five cartons containing several bricks of marijuana and decided to bring them to the PDEA-CAR Office for marking and inventory considering their volume. The booking sheet, arrest report, request for urine and physical examination and results thereof, affidavits of the police team, and inventory of the seized items were prepared. The confiscated bricks of marijuana were thereafter turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory in Benguet for chemical analysis.

Accused-appellant testified that he visited a certain Oliver Telaves in La Trinidad, Benguet to ask for fertilizer and insecticide. While he was waiting by the gate of Benguet State University, Danny Sison, a neighbor of Telaves, stopped in front of him while driving a taxi and convinced him to go to Baguio City. Accused-appellant noticed that there were baggages at the back of the taxi. When they arrived in Baguio City, they went to Rizal Park where Sison parked his taxi. Sison told accused-appellant that he had to wait for a group of persons who were going to get the baggages from the taxi. When accused-appellant stepped out of the taxi, the persons he later came to know as PDEA agents suddenly grabbed him while Sison was held inside his taxi. They were brought to the PDEA-CAR Office, where the PDEA agents attempted to convince Sison to settle the case. Accused-appellant was never informed of the reason why he was detained. Sison was later brought to a different room and accused-appellant never saw him again. Accused-appellant was given Generoso and Blue gin by the PDEA agents on the night of his arrest, and the drinking session lasted until 4:00 a.m. the following day.

The RTC ruled that the prosecution established an illegal sale of dried marijuana leaves by Lingbanan and Alacdis with the indispensable cooperation of accused-appellant, who delivered and transported the corpus delicti to the poseur-buyer SP02 Agbayani through a legitimate buy-bust operation. The RTC considered the entire operation as consisting of two stages, the test-buy phase and the actual entrapment operation, and found that the test-buy phase led to the entrapment operation and the negotiation for the sale of the 107 kilos of marijuana. The CA sustained the findings of the RTC.

• Lack of Participation in Illegal Sale: Accused-appellant argued that he was not privy to the illegal sale of marijuana and that the prosecution failed to prove conspiracy among the three accused.
• Knowledge and Intent for Delivery: He maintained that knowledge is a requisite for delivery of dangerous drugs and that the prosecution failed to establish that he intentionally and knowingly delivered the marijuana, whether as a conspirator in the sale or in any other capacity.
• Absence of Marked Money: He pointed out that the absence of marked money negates his participation in the sale between SP02 Agbayani and the other two accused.
• Invalid Buy-Bust/Instigation: He questioned the validity of the buy-bust operation, insisting that it was an instigation rather than a valid buy-bust operation.
• Chain of Custody: He questioned the failure to abide by the chain of custody rule and the lack of finding as regards the custodial chain of the seized items.

• Illegal Sale: Whether accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II, RA 9165.
• Illegal Delivery and Transportation: Whether accused-appellant may be convicted of illegal delivery and transportation of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II, RA 9165 despite the absence of consideration.
• Knowledge and Intent: Whether accused-appellant knowingly and intentionally delivered the marijuana.
• Conspiracy: Whether conspiracy among the three accused was proven.
• Buy-Bust Operation: Whether the buy-bust operation was valid or constituted instigation.
• Chain of Custody: Whether the prosecution complied with the chain of custody rule over the seized marijuana.
• Penalty: Whether the fine imposed should be reduced.

• Illegal Sale: No. The sale was not consummated because accused-appellant did not receive consideration; he was arrested immediately after the box containing the marijuana bricks was opened for SP02 Agbayani.
• Illegal Delivery and Transportation: Yes. Section 5, Article II, RA 9165 penalizes delivery and transportation, and delivery may be committed even without consideration.
• Knowledge and Intent: Yes. SP02 Agbayani's testimony showed accused-appellant knew he was delivering marijuana; he opened the carton to show the goods, and the volume of marijuana indicated intent to deliver.
• Conspiracy: No separate ruling was necessary. Liability for illegal delivery and transportation rested on accused-appellant's own knowing acts, not on conspiracy.
• Buy-Bust Operation: Valid. Decoy solicitation is not prohibited by law and does not render the buy-bust operation invalid.
• Chain of Custody: Yes. The prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody from marking to laboratory examination and presentation in court.
• Penalty: Yes. The fine was reduced from PhP5,000,000 to PhP1,000,000 to conform with recent jurisprudence, while life imprisonment was retained.

• Illegal Sale: In illegal sale, the delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money consummate the illegal transaction. Consideration or payment is an essential element; without it, conviction for illegal sale cannot stand. Here, accused-appellant did not receive consideration because he was arrested immediately after he opened the box containing the marijuana bricks for SP02 Agbayani. Thus, the RTC and CA erred in convicting him for illegal sale. People vs. Asislo and People vs. Maongco were cited.
• Illegal Delivery and Transportation: Section 5, Article II, RA 9165 punishes, among others, delivery and transportation of dangerous drugs. Section 3(k) defines "deliver" as any act of knowingly passing a dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, by any means, with or without consideration. The elements are: (1) the accused passed on possession of a dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, and by any means; (2) such delivery is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused knowingly made the delivery. All elements were present. Accused-appellant delivered the marijuana to SP02 Agbayani; he had no authority; and he knew he was delivering marijuana. The sheer volume of almost 110 kilos indicated intent to deliver. People vs. Hoble and People vs. Asislo were cited.
• Knowledge and Intent: SP02 Agbayani's testimony showed accused-appellant knew he was delivering marijuana. Accused-appellant told SP02 Agbayani that the marijuana was at the back of the taxi, requested the driver to open the back, and opened one carton to show the goods. The defense failed to refute SP02 Agbayani's testimony and credibility. In dangerous drugs cases, credence is given to the narration of prosecution witnesses, especially police officers presumed to have performed their duties regularly, absent evidence to the contrary. No ill motive was shown. The trial court's evaluation of witness credibility will not be disturbed absent palpable error or grave abuse of discretion. People vs. Steve and People vs. Asislo were cited.
• Conspiracy: The conviction for illegal delivery and transportation did not depend on proof of conspiracy; it rested on accused-appellant's own acts of knowingly delivering and transporting the marijuana. The prosecution proved the purpose and actual transportation through the following circumstances: (1) a prior unlawful arrangement between Lingbanan and Alacdis with SP02 Agbayani for the purchase of marijuana; (2) Rizal Park was designated as the place of delivery and the marijuana would be delivered by accused-appellant at around 10-11 o'clock in the morning; (3) the five cartons of marijuana were loaded into the taxi ridden by accused-appellant to Rizal Park; (4) accused-appellant opened the carton containing the marijuana to show the goods to SP02 Agbayani prior to payment; and (5) the buy-bust team found and confiscated a substantial amount of marijuana loaded in the taxi. Thus, no separate conspiracy finding was necessary for his liability.
• Buy-Bust Operation: A police officer's act of soliciting drugs from the accused during a buy-bust operation, or "decoy solicitation," is not prohibited by law and does not render the buy-bust operation invalid. The sale of contraband is a kind of offense habitually committed, and solicitation merely furnishes evidence of the criminal's course of conduct. People vs. Sta. Maria clarified that decoy solicitation is not inducement or instigation. Here, the police received an intelligence report that accused-appellant had been habitually dealing in illegal drugs and acted on it by utilizing an informant to effect a drug transaction. There was no showing that the informant induced accused-appellant to sell illegal drugs. People vs. Bartolome and People vs. Sta. Maria were cited.
• Chain of Custody: The chain of custody rule was established unbroken: (1) accused-appellant was taken to the PDEA-CAR office where SP02 Agbayani marked the marijuana bricks with CGA 5-06-08 due to the volume of the confiscated marijuana; (2) the marked items were personally delivered by the buy-bust team to the PDEA-CAR office; (3) the booking sheet, arrest report, request for urine and physical examination and the results, affidavits of the police officers, and inventory of the seized items were prepared; (4) the marked marijuana bricks were turned over to the PNP crime laboratory for chemical analysis; (5) the laboratory examination gave positive result for marijuana; and (6) sample specimens were presented as evidence in court. Thus, the chain of custody was unbroken.
• Penalty: Article II, Section 5 of RA 9165 prescribes life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from PhP500,000 to PhP10,000,000. The Court deemed it proper to reduce the fine from PhP5,000,000 to PhP1,000,000 to conform with recent jurisprudence, citing People vs. Asislo, which imposed a PhP1,000,000 fine for illegal delivery and transportation of 110 kilograms of marijuana. Accused-appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of PhP1,000,000.

• Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs — Consummation and Consideration — In illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money consummate the illegal transaction. Consideration or payment is an essential element; without it, conviction for illegal sale cannot stand. The Court applied this doctrine by setting aside accused-appellant's conviction for illegal sale because he was arrested immediately after opening the box of marijuana bricks, before receiving any payment.
• Illegal Delivery and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs — Elements — Under Section 3(k), Article I of RA 9165, "deliver" means any act of knowingly passing a dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, by any means, with or without consideration. To sustain conviction for illegal delivery, the prosecution must prove: (1) the accused passed on possession of a dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, and by any means; (2) such delivery is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused knowingly made the delivery. Delivery may be committed even without consideration. The Court found all elements present because accused-appellant knowingly delivered marijuana to SP02 Agbayani without authority.
• Decoy Solicitation in Buy-Bust Operations — A police officer's act of soliciting drugs from the accused during a buy-bust operation, known as "decoy solicitation," is not prohibited by law and does not render the buy-bust operation invalid. It is not inducement or instigation; the sale of contraband is a kind of offense habitually committed, and the solicitation merely furnishes evidence of a course of conduct. The Court applied this doctrine because the police acted on an intelligence report and there was no showing that the informant induced accused-appellant to sell illegal drugs.
• Chain of Custody Rule — The prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of custody over seized dangerous drugs. The Court found the chain unbroken from the marking of the marijuana bricks with CGA 5-06-08 at the PDEA-CAR office, to their delivery to the PDEA-CAR office, preparation of booking sheet, arrest report, requests and results of examinations, affidavits and inventory, turnover to the PNP crime laboratory for chemical analysis, positive laboratory result, and presentation of sample specimens in court.
• Credibility of Police Officers and Presumption of Regularity — In cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence should be given to the narration of prosecution witnesses, especially police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. The Court applied this doctrine because accused-appellant failed to present evidence to sufficiently refute SP02 Agbayani's testimony and credibility, and no ill motive was shown.
• Intent to Deliver from Volume of Drugs — Possession of prohibited drugs, coupled with the fact that the possessor is not a user thereof, cannot indicate anything else but the intention to sell, distribute, or deliver the prohibited stuff. The Court applied this doctrine because accused-appellant was found in possession of almost 110 kilos of marijuana, which was a clear indicia of purpose and intent to sell, distribute, and transport.

• "In the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money consummate the illegal transaction." — States the ratio for setting aside the illegal sale conviction: the transaction was not consummated because no marked money was received.
• 'The unlawful act of "delivery" is defined under Section 3, Article I of RA 9165, as follows: (k) Deliver. - Any act of knowingly passing a dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, and by any means, with or without consideration.' — Defines "delivery" under RA 9165 and supplies the statutory basis for convicting accused-appellant despite the absence of consideration.
• "To sustain a conviction for the illegal delivery of dangerous drugs, it must be proven that: (1) the accused passed on possession of a dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, and by any means; (2) such delivery is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused knowingly made the delivery. Worthy of note is that the delivery may be committed even without consideration." — Enumerates the elements of illegal delivery and expressly notes that consideration is not required.
• 'A police officer's act of soliciting drugs from the accused during a buy-bust operation, or what is known as a "decoy solicitation," is not prohibited by law and does not render invalid the buy-bust operation.' — Establishes that decoy solicitation does not invalidate a buy-bust operation, disposing of accused-appellant's instigation defense.

• People vs. Asislo, G.R. No. 206224, January 18, 2016 — Cited for the rule that consideration is essential to illegal sale and for the reduction of the fine to PhP1,000,000 in a case involving illegal delivery and transportation of 110 kilograms of marijuana.
• People vs. Maongco, G.R. No. 196966, October 23, 2013 — Cited for the principle that consideration or payment is one of the essential elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
• People vs. Hoble, G.R. No. 96091, July 22, 1992 — Cited for the rule that possession of prohibited drugs, coupled with the fact that the possessor is not a user, indicates intention to sell, distribute, or deliver the prohibited stuff.
• People vs. Steve, G.R. No. 204911, August 6, 2014 — Cited for the rule that credence should be given to the narration of prosecution witnesses, especially police officers presumed to have performed their duties regularly, unless there is evidence to the contrary.
• People vs. Bartolome, G.R. No. 191726, February 6, 2013 — Cited for the rule that decoy solicitation is not prohibited by law and does not render a buy-bust operation invalid.
• People vs. Sta. Maria, G.R. No. 171019, February 23, 2007 — Cited for the clarification that decoy solicitation is not tantamount to inducement or instigation.

• Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 — Penalizes the sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution, transportation, and other specified acts involving dangerous drugs, and prescribes the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from PhP500,000 to PhP10,000,000. Applied to convict accused-appellant of illegal delivery and transportation of 107 kilograms of marijuana and to impose life imprisonment and a fine of PhP1,000,000.
• Section 3(k), Article I, Republic Act No. 9165 — Defines "deliver" as any act of knowingly passing a dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, by any means, with or without consideration. Applied to hold that accused-appellant's delivery of marijuana to SP02 Agbayani was punishable even though no consideration was received.

Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Lucas P. Bersamin, Bienvenido L. Reyes, and Francis H. Jardeleza.