People vs. Abella and Sendiong

In buy-bust operations, the criminal intent to sell dangerous drugs must originate in the mind of the accused to constitute valid entrapment; where the accused voluntarily transacts with the poseur-buyer and demonstrates predisposition to commit the crime, the defense of instigation fails. The buy-bust team merely facilitated apprehension by employing ruses and schemes, and the synchronized acts of the accused-appellants in receiving payment and delivering the contraband established conspiracy and predisposition to sell.

On 18 January 2009, SPO1 Manuel Sanchez, PDEA team leader of Dumaguete City, received information from a confidential informant that Evangeline Abella and Mae Ann Sendiong were engaged in selling dangerous drugs at Upper Luke Wright, Dumaguete City. A surveillance operation conducted that day confirmed the information. The following day, the PDEA planned an entrapment operation utilizing Urseevi Tubio, a PDEA asset, as poseur-buyer. During the operation, Tubio approached the accused-appellants and successfully purchased one heat-sealed sachet of shabu for ₱300.00, leading to their immediate arrest and the seizure of an additional sachet from Sendiong's possession.

• The Buy-Bust Operation: On 19 January 2009 at approximately 11:00 A.M., the PDEA buy-bust team conducted an entrapment operation at Upper Luke Wright, Dumaguete City. Urseevi Tubio, a PDEA asset, acted as poseur-buyer while team members positioned themselves approximately seven meters away. Tubio approached Abella and Sendiong and expressed intent to purchase shabu. Abella agreed to sell, received the buy-bust money (one marked ₱100.00 bill and one marked ₱200.00 bill), and handed it to Sendiong. Sendiong then provided a heat-sealed transparent sachet to Abella, who delivered it to Tubio. Upon consummation, Tubio removed his cap as the pre-arranged signal, prompting the buy-bust team to effect the arrest.
• Seizure and Marking: PO2 Glenn Corsame marked the sachet received from Tubio as "EM-BB 1-19-09" (representing Evangeline and Mae Ann, buy-bust, and date). SPO1 Allen June Germodo arrested Sendiong and confiscated from her a swiss knife key holder containing another heat-sealed sachet, which PO2 Corsame marked "MS-P 1-19-09" (representing Mae Ann Sendiong, possession, and date). The markings were applied at the place of arrest without breaking the seals, in the presence of the accused-appellants.
• Inventory and Witnesses: PO2 Corsame conducted an inventory at the scene of arrest with Astellero (DOJ representative), Merced (elected public official), and the accused-appellants present. SPO1 Germodo photographed the proceedings. Fabillar (media representative) later signed the inventory receipt at the PDEA office in the presence of the accused-appellants. The receipt was signed by the accused-appellants, witnesses, and law enforcement officers.
• Laboratory Examination: At 4:00 P.M. on the same day, PO2 Corsame submitted the seized items to the PDEA crime laboratory. Forensic Chemist PCI Josephine S. Llena examined the sachets and found each contained 0.01 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride. She broke the seals to examine the contents, then resealed the sachets with masking tape, affixed additional markings ("A D-004-09" and "B-1 D-004-09"), and secured them in a steel cabinet in the evidence room accessible only to her. She delivered the items to the RTC on 30 January 2009.
• Defense Evidence: Abella testified she was working as a laundry woman at Bebie Quizon's house when armed persons forcibly arrested her without informing her of her rights, and that she had no knowledge of the drugs presented during inventory. Sendiong testified she was waiting for an aunt to borrow money for her daughter's medical treatment when she was arrested without cause, frisked by policewomen who found nothing, and denied knowledge of the seized items.
• Lower Court Findings: The RTC found the prosecution witnesses credible and their testimonies consistent, establishing the elements of illegal sale and possession. The CA affirmed, finding no merit in claims of instigation or broken chain of custody.

• Failure to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Abella argued that the prosecution failed to establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt, claiming the operation was actually instigation rather than entrapment because Tubio "convinced" the accused-appellants to sell shabu. She asserted that without a police officer standing beside Tubio during the transaction, the prosecution could not prove the sale occurred as alleged.
• Broken Chain of Custody: Abella contended that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody, specifically questioning PCI Llena's use of masking tape rather than adhesive tape to reseal the sachets after laboratory examination, citing People v. Habana.
• Material Inconsistency in Witness Testimonies: Sendiong argued that the testimony of Tubio (that he was the poseur-buyer) irreconcilably conflicted with the testimony of police officers who allegedly referred to the "confidential informant" as the poseur-buyer, creating fatal reasonable doubt as to the identity of the actual buyer and undermining the prosecution's burden of proof.

• Elements Established: The prosecution established all elements of illegal sale (identity of buyer and seller, object, consideration, delivery, and payment) and illegal possession (possession of prohibited drug without authorization, free and conscious possession) through the credible and consistent testimonies of the poseur-buyer and buy-bust team members.
• Valid Entrapment: The operation constituted valid entrapment, not instigation. The criminal intent to sell originated with the accused-appellants, evidenced by their voluntary participation in the transaction and prior surveillance confirming their drug-selling activities. The fact that Tubio convinced them of his intent to buy did not constitute inducement where they demonstrated predisposition to commit the crime.
• Unbroken Chain of Custody: The prosecution established the four links in the chain of custody: (1) seizure and marking by the apprehending officer; (2) turnover to the investigating officer; (3) turnover to the forensic chemist; and (4) submission to court. The use of masking tape to reseal the sachets did not compromise integrity where the chemist took additional measures including personal custody in a locked cabinet accessible only to her.
• Harmless Terminological Error: The alleged inconsistency regarding the poseur-buyer's identity was merely an inadvertent use of terminology; the testimonies clearly established that Tubio was the poseur-buyer while the confidential informant was a separate person who participated in surveillance but refused to act as buyer due to fear.

• Entrapment vs. Instigation: Whether the buy-bust operation constituted valid entrapment or illegal instigation where the poseur-buyer "convinced" the accused-appellants to sell shabu.
• Conspiracy: Whether conspiracy between Abella and Sendiong in the illegal sale was established.
• Chain of Custody: Whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs.
• Credibility of Witnesses: Whether the alleged inconsistency between the police officers' reference to "confidential informant" and Tubio's testimony as poseur-buyer created reasonable doubt fatal to the prosecution's case.

• Entrapment vs. Instigation: The operation constituted valid entrapment. Instigation requires that the criminal intent originate from the inducer, whereas entrapment merely facilitates the apprehension of a criminal whose intent to commit the crime already exists. Here, the accused-appellants voluntarily and knowingly transacted with Tubio to sell shabu for ₱300.00, demonstrating pre-existing criminal intent confirmed by prior surveillance showing them engaged in selling drugs. The fact that Tubio convinced them of his intent to buy did not constitute inducement where they demonstrated predisposition to violate the law.
• Conspiracy: Conspiracy was established. By statutory definition, conspiracy exists when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it. The synchronized acts of Abella receiving the money and handing it to Sendiong, and Sendiong providing the sachet to Abella who delivered it to Tubio, demonstrated mutual agreement and community of criminal design.
• Chain of Custody: An unbroken chain of custody was established. The prosecution demonstrated all four links: (1) PO2 Corsame seized and marked the sachets immediately after confiscation at the place of arrest; (2) he maintained possession until turnover to the laboratory; (3) PCI Llena received and examined the items, then resealed them with masking tape (a valid alternative to adhesive tape), placed additional markings, and secured them in a locked cabinet accessible only to her; and (4) she delivered the items to the RTC. The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved.
• Credibility of Witnesses: The alleged inconsistency was merely an inadvertent use of the terms "confidential informant" and "poseur-buyer" by police officers. A review of the testimonies established that Tubio was the poseur-buyer while the confidential informant was a separate individual who refused to act as buyer due to fear. The presence of a police officer beside the poseur-buyer is not an element of the crime nor required for conviction. The presumption of regularity in the performance of duties applied where the accused-appellants failed to show ill motive or improper conduct by the arresting officers.

• Entrapment vs. Instigation — Instigation means luring the accused into a crime he otherwise had no intention to commit, originating the criminal intent from the inducer. Entrapment is the employment of ways and means to trap a lawbreaker where the criminal intent originates in the mind of the accused. Instigation leads to acquittal; entrapment does not bar prosecution. To determine which exists, courts examine the conduct of the apprehending officers and the predisposition of the accused to commit the crime. In this case, the accused-appellants' predisposition was evidenced by their voluntary participation in the sale and prior surveillance confirming their drug-selling activities.
• Elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs — Under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the elements are: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and its consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.
• Elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs — Under Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the elements are: (a) the accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited drug; (b) such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.
• Chain of Custody — The four links that must be established are: (1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. Marking is the placing of initials and signature on items after seizure, serving as the starting point in the custodial link to prevent switching, planting, or contamination.
• Presumption of Regularity — The presumption that official duty has been regularly performed applies unless there is clear and convincing evidence that police officers were inspired by improper motive or did not properly perform their duty.

• "Instigation means luring the accused into a crime that he, otherwise, had no intention to commit, in order to prosecute him. On the other hand, entrapment is the employment of ways and means in order to trap or capture a lawbreaker. Instigation presupposes that the criminal intent to commit an offense originated from the inducer and not the accused who had no intention to commit the crime and would not have committed it were it not for the initiatives by the inducer. In entrapment, the criminal intent or design to commit the offense charged originates in the mind of the accused; the law enforcement officials merely facilitate the apprehension of the criminal by employing ruses and schemes."
• "The rigorous requirement as to the chain of custody of seized drugs and paraphernalia was given life in the provisions of R.A. No. 9165... The legal teaching consistently upheld in our jurisprudence is that, as a general rule, there are four links in the chain of custody of the confiscated item that must be established by the prosecution... Marking is the placing by the arresting officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the items after they have been seized. It is the starting point in the custodial link."
• "Narcotic substances are not readily identifiable. To determine their composition and nature, they must undergo scientific testing and analysis. Narcotic substances are also highly susceptible to alteration, tampering, or contamination. It is imperative, therefore, that the drugs allegedly seized from the accused are the very same objects tested in the laboratory and offered in court as evidence. The chain of custody, as a method of authentication, ensures that unnecessary doubts involving the identity of seized drugs are removed."

• People v. Doria — Cited for the distinction between entrapment and instigation and the test for determining predisposition of the accused.
• People v. Habana, 628 Phil. 334 (2010) — Distinguished; in Habana the prosecution failed to present evidence on how sachets were transferred from investigator to laboratory technician and how they were kept prior to trial, whereas in this case the prosecution established the complete chain of custody.
• People v. Arposeple, G.R. No. 205787, 22 November 2017 — Cited for the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
• People v. Lumaya, G.R. No. 231983, 7 March 2018 — Cited for the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
• People v. Sandiganbayan, 556 Phil. 596 (2007) — Cited for the statutory definition of conspiracy.

• Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) — Defines and penalizes the sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution, and transportation of dangerous drugs.
• Section 11, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 — Defines and penalizes the possession of dangerous drugs.
• Section 21, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 — Prescribes the custody and disposition of confiscated dangerous drugs, including the requirement for physical inventory and photographing in the presence of the accused, representatives, media, DOJ, and elected officials, and submission to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory within 24 hours.
• Section 77, Republic Act No. 9165 — Defines the Dangerous Drugs Board's role as the policy-making body.

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Bersamin, Leonen, and Gesmundo, JJ.