People vs. Cruz

Non-compliance with the inventory and photography requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165 does not render the seizure of items invalid or inadmissible, provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.

On June 24, 2003, a police informant reported that Danilo Cruz alias "Boy" was dealing illegal drugs at his residence in Taguig. A buy-bust team was formed, with PO3 Arago acting as poseur-buyer using two marked one-hundred-peso bills. Cruz sold a sachet of shabu to PO3 Arago and was found with two more sachets upon his arrest. Cruz claimed police barged into his house, boxed him, and planted the charges.

• The Buy-Bust Operation: An informant reported Danilo Cruz for dealing drugs. P/SInsp. Paat formed a team with PO3 Arago as poseur-buyer, providing him with two marked P100 bills. The team proceeded to Cruz's house. The informant called Cruz out and introduced PO3 Arago as a buyer. PO3 Arago asked for P200 worth of shabu; Cruz handed over a plastic sachet in exchange for the marked money. PO3 Arago then gave the pre-arranged signal by wiping his face with a white towel.
• The Arrest and Seizure: PO3 Arago grabbed Cruz, while PO2 Aguinaldo recovered the marked money from Cruz's hand. Upon being ordered to empty his pockets, two more sachets were recovered by PO2 Aguinaldo. The sachets were marked at the arrest site with Cruz's initials.
• Laboratory Examination: The sachets were forwarded to the PNP Crime Laboratory. Physical Science Report No. D-747-03 confirmed the substances were positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The forensic chemist's testimony was dispensed with after the prosecution and defense stipulated that the specimens tested positive for shabu and were regularly examined.
• Defense Version: Cruz testified that police barged into his house while he was playing cara y cruz with friends, boxed him, and searched his house but found nothing. He claimed he was arbitrarily arrested and charged. His testimony was corroborated by Ma. Luz Encarnacion and Ronaldo dela Paz.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Petitioner argued that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were materially inconsistent and should not have been relied upon.
• Presumption of Innocence: Petitioner maintained that the prosecution failed to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence.
• Absence of Prior Surveillance: Petitioner contended that it was unusual and improbable to conduct a buy-bust operation without prior surveillance despite the informant's report.
• Chain of Custody and Inventory: Petitioner argued that police officers failed to properly inventory, photograph, or mark the seized items immediately after the operation in the presence of the accused, counsel, media, DOJ, or elected public official as required by RA 9165.

• Validity of the Operation: Respondent countered that the buy-bust operation was valid and all elements of the crimes charged were duly established by the prosecution.
• Chain of Custody: Respondent maintained that there was substantial compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved.
• Credibility of Witnesses: Respondent argued that minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses do not affect their credibility on material points, and the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty stands absent proof of ill motive.

• Credibility of Witnesses: Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the prosecution witnesses despite alleged inconsistencies in their testimonies.
• Validity of the Buy-Bust Operation: Whether the lack of prior surveillance invalidates the buy-bust operation.
• Chain of Custody: Whether the failure to strictly comply with the inventory and photography requirements of Section 21, RA 9165 invalidates the seizure and renders the confiscated items inadmissible.

• Credibility of Witnesses: Minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses do not overturn a judgment of conviction when the testimonies are consistent on material points. The trial court's assessment of witness credibility is accorded great respect absent any overlooked fact or circumstance of weight.
• Validity of the Buy-Bust Operation: Prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of a buy-bust operation, especially when the team is accompanied by an informant or when time is of the essence. The elements of illegal sale were established through the actual exchange of the marked money and the contraband.
• Chain of Custody: Strict compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 is not required with pedantic rigor. Non-compliance with the inventory and photography requirements does not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized inadmissible, provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The chain of custody was established through the testimony of the seizing officer and the stipulation regarding the forensic chemist's examination.

• Prior Surveillance in Buy-Bust Operations — Prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of a buy-bust operation, especially if the team is accompanied by an informant or when time is of the essence.
• Substantial Compliance with Section 21, RA 9165 — Non-compliance with the physical inventory and photography requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165 does not render the seizure invalid or the items inadmissible, provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team.
• Animus Possidendi in Drug Possession — Being caught in flagrante delicto in actual possession of a prohibited drug constitutes prima facie evidence of animus possidendi. Finding a dangerous drug in the house or premises of the accused is prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict absent a satisfactory explanation.
• Presumption of Regularity vs. Denial/Frame-up — Denial and frame-up are inherently weak defenses viewed with disfavor. In the absence of evidence of ill motive on the part of police officers, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty prevails.

• "What is essential is 'the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.'"
• "Settled is the rule that a prior surveillance of the suspected offender is not a prerequisite for the validity of a buy-bust operation, especially so if the buy-bust team is accompanied by the informant, as in this case."
• "Therefore, contrary to appellant’s assertions, Sec. 21 need not be followed with pedantic rigor. It has been settled that non-compliance with Sec. 21 does not render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from the accused inadmissible."

• Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008 — Followed. Cited for the definition and requirement of the chain of custody rule as a method of authenticating evidence, requiring testimony about every link in the chain from seizure to presentation in court.
• People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, July 28, 2008 — Followed. Cited for the rule that non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 does not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated inadmissible.
• U.S. v. Bandoc, 23 Phil. 14 (1912) — Followed. Cited for the principle that finding a dangerous drug in the house or premises of the accused is prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi.

• Section 5, Article II, RA 9165 — Sale of Dangerous Drugs. Applied to the sachet sold to the poseur-buyer; elements of the sale were consummated by the delivery of the illicit drug and receipt of the marked money.
• Section 11, Article II, RA 9165 — Possession of Dangerous Drugs. Applied to the two sachets found in the accused's pockets; possession was unauthorized and conscious.
• Section 21, Article II, RA 9165 — Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs. Interpreted to allow substantial compliance; the proviso stating that non-compliance shall not render seizures void if the integrity and evidentiary value of the items are preserved was applied.

Renato C. Corona, Diosdado M. Peralta, Mariano C. del Castillo, Martin S. Villarama, Jr.