People vs. Musa

Failure to conduct the physical inventory and photograph required by Section 21 of RA 9165 is not fatal where the prosecution establishes that the seized drug’s identity and integrity were preserved from seizure to court presentation. The organized/syndicated crime group aggravating circumstance cannot be appreciated from conspiracy in the drug sale alone; the prosecution must prove the group was organized for the general purpose of committing crimes for gain.

The case against Asia Musa, Ara Monongan, Faisah Abas, and Mike Solalo concerns the sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. RA 9165 governs the custody and disposition of seized dangerous drugs, and Section 21 requires the apprehending team to inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or representative, media, DOJ, and an elected official; its Implementing Rules allow non-compliance under justifiable grounds if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, authorizes the maximum penalty when the offense is committed by an organized/syndicated crime group, defined as a group of two or more persons collaborating, confederating, or mutually helping one another for purposes of gain in the commission of any crime.

On June 1, 2004, at about 9:00 p.m., the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special Operating Task Force of the Taguig City Police received an informant’s report that Musa and her cohorts were selling prohibited drugs at Maharlika Village, Taguig City. The police immediately organized a buy-bust operation with PO1 Danilo Arago and PO1 Rey Memoracion as team members. PO1 Memoracion was designated poseur-buyer; five one-thousand peso bills with Memoracion’s initials were to be used as marked money; and Memoracion’s lighting of a cigarette was the pre-arranged signal. The buy-bust team submitted a pre-operation report to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency and entered it in the police blotter. Thereafter, the team, along with the informant, proceeded to Sunshine Mall where PO1 Memoracion and the informant were to meet the alleged drug dealers.

At around 9:45 p.m., the informant and Memoracion alighted from the vehicle while the rest of the buy-bust team waited at the parking lot. The informant introduced Memoracion to Abas and Solano as a potential buyer. Memoracion told them he wanted to score shabu worth P5,000, but Abas and Solano replied that they had no available stocks on hand and offered to accompany him to Musa at a nearby condominium unit at Building II, Maharlika Village. Memoracion agreed and pretended to go to the comfort room to inform PO1 Arago of the change of venue; he also changed the pre-arranged signal from lighting a cigarette to a phone ring or “missed call” and asked the rest of the team to follow them. Thereafter, the informant, Memoracion, Abas, and Solano boarded a tricycle to Musa’s place. They arrived at the condominium at around 10:30 p.m. and went to the 4th floor while the rest of the buy-bust team remained at the ground floor waiting for Memoracion’s call. The four met Musa at the hallway outside Unit 403. Abas introduced Memoracion to Musa as the buyer. Musa ordered Ara Monongan to count the money. Afterwards, Musa took from her pocket one heat-sealed plastic sachet of shabu and gave it to Memoracion. Memoracion immediately called PO1 Arago, who, together with two other police officers, proceeded to Memoracion’s location about 15 meters away from the ground floor. Upon seeing accused-appellants, the police officers made the arrest. PO1 Arago confiscated from Monongan the marked money of five P1,000 bills with Memoracion’s initials. PO1 Memoracion marked the seized sachet with “APM,” the initials of accused Aisa Pinasilo Musa. He then delivered the confiscated item to the PNP Crime Laboratory, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City, and requested an examination. The PNP Crime Lab Report showed that the substance weighing 4.05 grams tested positive for shabu. PO1 Arago corroborated this version.

Musa claimed that on June 1, 2004, she and her husband Bakar Musa went to their friend Sonny Sagayno’s house at Unit 512, Building 2, Maharlika Village, Taguig City, to discuss their forthcoming travel to Saudi Arabia; while they were inside, two police officers barged in while their companions stood outside and searched for prohibited drugs but found no shabu; she said Ara Monongan was her neighbor and denied knowing her and Faisah Abas that well. Monongan averred that from morning to 12:00 noon of June 1, 2004, she was at her aunt Habiba’s house at Unit 403, Building 2, Maharlika Village, washing clothes and looking over her aunt’s children; at about noon a visitor named Norma arrived, and at about 1:00 p.m. Sonny Sagayno, Faisah Abas, and Abas’s textmate Angie arrived; at about 3:00 or 4:00 p.m., policemen in civilian clothes barged into the house, searched for illegal drugs, found none, and arrested her; she was staying there only for a vacation, saw Faisah and Angie for the first time, and although Aiza was her neighbor, she disclaimed knowing her; she was 17 years old at the time and her real name was Ara Nonongan, not Ara Monongan. Solano alleged that at around 11:00 a.m. on June 1, 2004, his cousin Faisah Abas asked him to accompany her to Sunshine Mall to meet her textmate Angie; while Faisah waited for Angie, Mike went to the 2nd floor for window shopping; Angie arrived with two pregnant women but left at noon to go to a condominium in Maharlika Village; after he and the two pregnant women ate in Jollibee, a big man sat beside him, introduced himself as a policeman, and ordered him to come peacefully and explain in his office; he claimed not knowing Aiza Musa and Ara Monongan and saw them for the first time when they boarded the same vehicle. Abas claimed that she and her cousin Mike Solano proceeded to Sunshine Mall to meet Angie; she accompanied Angie to Building 2 of Maharlika Village where they met Angie’s cousin Sonny Sagayno at the 5th floor and all proceeded to the 4th floor; inside Sonny’s house she saw Ara Monongan, another female person, and three children; after lunch she heard a gunshot and discovered that Sonny was no longer there; shortly thereafter, three persons in civilian clothes barged into the house, introduced themselves as policemen, poked a gun at her, frightened and handcuffed her; two operatives went inside the room and ransacked some of Ara’s belongings; the policemen accused her of selling illegal drugs, but no shabu was found in her possession.

The RTC gave credence to PO1 Memoracion’s testimony, finding it “candid, straightforward, firm, unwavering, nay credible,” and found no showing that he was ill-motivated in testifying against all accused; it rejected the defenses of alibi and denial because the accused failed to present clear and convincing evidence that it was impossible for them to be at the locus criminis at the time of the buy-bust operation. On the chain of custody, the records showed that immediately after the operation PO1 Memoracion marked the seized sachet with “APM” on the masking tape; at 1:55H of June 2, 2004, he delivered to the PNP Crime Laboratory Service, SPD Fort Bonifacio, Taguig, a Request for Laboratory Examination dated June 2, 2004, together with the sachet; the request was stamped “01:55H 02 June 04,” “RECEIVED BY: Nup Bacayan,” and “DELIVERED BY: PO1 Memoracion”; at 0300H of June 2, 2004, the PNP Crime Laboratory Southern Police District Crime Laboratory issued Physical Science Report No. D-439-04S stating that the heat-sealed plastic sachet marked “APM” containing 4.05 grams of crystalline substance yielded positive for shabu; during the May 28, 2007 hearing, the accused, through counsel, stipulated on the testimony of forensic chemist Police Inspector Richard Allan Manganib regarding his forensic examination of the sachet. The records contained no proof that the accused operated as an organized group or drug syndicate.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Accused-appellants argued that the CA erred in affirming the RTC’s finding of guilt because they doubted the credibility of the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies.
• Denial and Alibi: Accused-appellants argued that the CA erred in upholding the RTC’s rejection of their denials and alibis.
• Corpus Delicti and Chain of Custody: Accused-appellants argued that the prosecution failed to establish the corpus delicti of the offense and did not comply with the chain of custody rule under RA 9165 because no physical inventory and photograph of the seized items were taken in their presence or in the presence of their counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and an elective official.
• Conspiracy and Organized/Syndicated Crime Group: Accused-appellants argued that the RTC’s findings of conspiracy among them and that they were members of an organized/syndicated crime group were not established.
• Penalty: Accused-appellants questioned the CA’s imposition of the maximum penalty of life imprisonment and a P10,000,000 fine against all of them.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Whether the CA erred in affirming the credibility of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
• Denial and Alibi: Whether the CA erred in upholding the RTC’s rejection of accused-appellants’ denials and alibis.
• Chain of Custody: Whether the CA erred in ruling that there was compliance with the chain of custody rule under RA 9165.
• Penalty: Whether the CA erred in imposing the maximum penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P10,000,000 against all accused.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: No. The RTC’s credibility assessment, affirmed by the CA, is entitled to great weight absent arbitrariness or overlooked material facts; PO1 Memoracion’s testimony was corroborated by PO1 Arago.
• Denial and Alibi: No. Denial and frame-up require proof of ill motive, and alibi failed because accused admitted being within the vicinity of the locus criminis and did not prove physical impossibility.
• Chain of Custody: No. Non-compliance with the inventory and photograph requirements did not automatically void the seizure because the prosecution preserved the integrity and evidentiary value of the shabu.
• Penalty: No. The organized/syndicated group aggravating circumstance was not proved, so the P10,000,000 fine was reduced to P500,000; Monongan’s minority required an indeterminate penalty of 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor to 14 years, 8 months, and 1 day of reclusion temporal.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: The SC applied the settled rule that the trial court’s assessment of a witness’s credibility is entitled to great weight and sometimes finality because the RTC had the opportunity to observe the witness’s deportment and manner of testifying. The factual findings of the RTC, strengthened by the CA’s affirmance, are binding unless tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness, or palpable error. The RTC found PO1 Memoracion’s testimony “candid, straightforward, firm, unwavering, nay credible” and found no ill motive; PO1 Arago corroborated him. There was no showing that the RTC overlooked or misinterpreted material facts or gravely abused its discretion. The SC therefore sustained the credibility finding, citing People vs. Dinglasan.
• Denial and Alibi: The SC held that denial and frame-up are disfavored and cannot prevail absent clear and convincing evidence that the buy-bust team was inspired by ill motives or did not properly perform its duties. Positive identification by PO1 Memoracion and PO1 Arago prevailed. For alibi, the accused must prove not only that they were elsewhere but also that it was physically impossible for them to be at the scene before, during, or after the offense; alibi must be corroborated by credible disinterested witnesses. All accused admitted being within the vicinity of Building 2, Maharlika Village, Taguig City, the locus criminis. Their alibis were negative and self-serving and could not outweigh the prosecution’s positive evidence, as explained in People vs. Apattad.
• Chain of Custody: Section 21 of RA 9165 requires immediate physical inventory and photograph of seized drugs in the presence of the accused or representative/counsel, media, DOJ, and elected official; the IRR allows non-compliance under justifiable grounds if integrity and evidentiary value are preserved. The essence is to ensure the drug presented is the same drug recovered. A perfect chain is almost always impossible, and non-compliance does not automatically void the seizure. Here, PO1 Memoracion marked the sachet “APM” immediately after the operation; he delivered it to the PNP Crime Laboratory at 1:55H on June 2, 2004 with a request for examination; Physical Science Report No. D-439-04S at 0300H on June 2, 2004 confirmed 4.05 grams positive for shabu; the forensic chemist’s testimony was stipulated. The absence of inventory and photographs was not fatal because the prosecution established with moral certainty that the identity, integrity, and evidentiary value of the shabu were preserved, following Castro vs. People, People vs. Presas, and People vs. Vicente, Jr.
• Penalty: For Monongan, Section 98 of RA 9165 provides that when the offender is a minor, the penalty for acts punishable by life imprisonment to death shall be reclusion perpetua to death. People vs. Mantalaba held that minority is a privileged mitigating circumstance; the penalty is reduced by one degree, and because the penalty becomes divisible, the Indeterminate Sentence Law applies. The minimum is taken from the penalty next lower in degree, prision mayor, and the maximum from the medium period of reclusion temporal absent other mitigating or aggravating circumstances. Monongan was 17 at the time and no other circumstances were present, so the proper penalty is 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 14 years, 8 months, and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum. For the fine, Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA 7659 imposes the maximum penalty when the offense is committed by an organized/syndicated crime group. RA 9165 Section 3(o) defines a drug syndicate as an organized group of two or more persons forming or joining together with the intention of committing any offense under RA 9165. People vs. Alberca and People vs. Santiago held that conspiracy in the sale is not enough; the prosecution must prove the group was organized for the general purpose of committing crimes for gain. The records were bereft of proof that accused-appellants operated as a drug syndicate. Conspiracy was established, but the organized/syndicated group aggravating circumstance was not. Aggravating circumstances must be based on positive and conclusive proof. The P10,000,000 fine was therefore reduced to P500,000, consistent with jurisprudence for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 absent aggravating circumstances.

• Chain of Custody Rule under Section 21 of RA 9165 — Section 21 requires immediate physical inventory and photograph of seized dangerous drugs in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official who must sign the inventory copies. Non-compliance under justifiable grounds does not automatically render the seizure void if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The SC applied this rule by holding that the absence of inventory and photographs was not fatal because PO1 Memoracion marked the sachet “APM” immediately, delivered it to the PNP Crime Laboratory, and the same sachet was examined and identified in court.
• Credibility of Trial Court Findings — The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is entitled to great weight and sometimes finality because the RTC had the opportunity to observe the witness’s deportment and manner of testifying. The factual findings of the RTC, strengthened by the CA’s affirmance, are binding unless tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness, or palpable error. The SC applied this by sustaining the RTC’s finding that PO1 Memoracion was credible and not ill-motivated.
• Defenses of Denial and Alibi — Denial and frame-up are disfavored and cannot prevail absent clear and convincing evidence that the buy-bust team was inspired by ill motives or did not properly perform its duties. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that they were somewhere else when the crime was committed but also that it was physically impossible for them to be at the scene before, during, or after the offense; alibi must be corroborated by credible disinterested witnesses. The SC applied this by rejecting the accused’s alibis because all admitted being within the vicinity of the locus criminis and failed to prove physical impossibility.
• Organized/Syndicated Crime Group Aggravating Circumstance — Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, imposes the maximum penalty when the offense is committed by an organized/syndicated crime group, defined as a group of two or more persons collaborating, confederating, or mutually helping one another for purposes of gain in the commission of any crime. Under RA 9165 Section 3(o), a drug syndicate is any organized group of two or more persons forming or joining together with the intention of committing any offense under RA 9165. Jurisprudence requires proof that the group was organized for the general purpose of committing crimes for gain; mere conspiracy in the drug sale is insufficient. The SC applied this by striking the aggravating circumstance and reducing the fine to P500,000.
• Minority as Privileged Mitigating Circumstance in RA 9165 — Section 98 of RA 9165 provides that the penalty for acts punishable by life imprisonment to death shall be reclusion perpetua to death when the offender is a minor. People vs. Mantalaba held that minority is a privileged mitigating circumstance; the penalty is reduced by one degree, and because the penalty becomes divisible, the Indeterminate Sentence Law applies, with the minimum taken from the penalty next lower in degree and the maximum from the medium period of reclusion temporal absent other circumstances. The SC applied this to Monongan, who was 17 at the time of the offense.
• Presumption of Regular Performance of Official Duties — Police officers are presumed to have performed their duties regularly absent evidence of ill motive, and credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers in drug cases unless there is evidence to the contrary. The SC applied this by giving full credence to the testimonies of PO1 Memoracion and PO1 Arago because the records showed no ill motive, bad faith, or digression from ordinary duty.

• “Since the "perfect chain" is almost always impossible to obtain, non-compliance with Sec. 21 of RA 9165, as stated in the Implementing Rules and Regulations, does not, without more, automatically render the seizure of the dangerous drug void, and evidence is admissible as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team.” — The SC used this to reject the argument that failure to inventory and photograph automatically invalidated the seizure.
• “The records, however, are bereft of any proof that accused-appellants operated as members of a drug syndicate.” — This finding supported the reduction of the P10,000,000 fine because the organized/syndicated group aggravating circumstance was not proved.
• “While the existence of conspiracy among appellants in selling shabu was duly established, there was no proof that appellants were a group organized for the general purpose of committing crimes for gain, which is the essence of the aggravating circumstance of organized/syndicated group under Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code.” — The SC quoted this ruling to explain that conspiracy in the drug sale does not by itself establish an organized/syndicated crime group.
• “Consequently, the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority can now be appreciated in fixing the penalty that should be imposed.” — The SC applied this to Monongan, who was 17 at the time of the offense, and reduced her penalty.

• People vs. Dinglasan, G.R. No. 101312, January 28, 1997, 267 SCRA 26 — Controlling precedent on the great weight accorded to the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility.
• People vs. Apattad, G.R. No. 193188, August 10, 2011 — Reiterated the jurisprudential rules on the defense of alibi.
• Castro vs. People, G.R. No. 193379, August 15, 2011 — Explained the chain of custody rule as a mode of authenticating evidence.
• People vs. Presas, G.R. No. 182525, March 2, 2011 — Similar ruling that failure to take photographs and make an inventory was not fatal where the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs were preserved.
• People vs. Vicente, Jr., G.R. No. 188847, January 31, 2011 — Held that credence is given to police officers in drug prosecutions absent evidence of ill motive.
• People vs. Mantalaba, G.R. No. 186227, July 20, 2011, 654 SCRA 188 — Controlling precedent on minority as a privileged mitigating circumstance under RA 9165 and the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
• People vs. Alberca, 327 Phil. 398 (1996) — Defined the organized/syndicated crime group and held that a group organized for the general purpose of committing crimes for gain is required.
• People vs. Santiago, G.R. No. 175326, November 28, 2007, 539 SCRA 198 — Held that conspiracy in selling shabu does not prove the organized/syndicated group aggravating circumstance.

• Section 5, Article II, RA 9165 — Penalizes the sale of dangerous drugs. The SC applied it by affirming the conviction after finding the essential elements of illegal sale: identity of buyer and seller, object of the sale, consideration, and delivery of the thing sold and payment.
• Section 21, RA 9165 — Requires the apprehending team to physically inventory and photograph seized dangerous drugs in the presence of the accused or representative/counsel, media, DOJ, and elected official. The SC applied it by holding that non-compliance was not fatal because the integrity and evidentiary value of the shabu were preserved.
• Section 21, Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 — Allows non-compliance with the inventory and photograph requirements under justifiable grounds as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The SC applied this exception to uphold the seizure.
• Section 3(o), RA 9165 — Defines a drug syndicate as any organized group of two or more persons forming or joining together with the intention of committing any offense under RA 9165. The SC applied it by finding no proof that the accused operated as a drug syndicate.
• Article 62, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 23 of RA 7659 — Imposes the maximum penalty when the offense is committed by an organized/syndicated crime group, defined as a group of two or more persons collaborating, confederating, or mutually helping one another for purposes of gain in the commission of any crime. The SC applied it by ruling that the aggravating circumstance was not proved.
• Section 98, RA 9165 — Provides that the penalty for acts punishable by life imprisonment to death shall be reclusion perpetua to death when the offender is a minor. The SC applied it to Monongan, who was 17 at the time of the offense.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied to Monongan after minority made the penalty divisible; the minimum was taken from prision mayor and the maximum from the medium period of reclusion temporal.