People vs. Orteza

The non-presentation of the poseur-buyer in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is fatal where no satisfactory explanation is offered for the absence and no reliable eyewitness can testify on the transaction.

A police team conducted a buy-bust operation on 19 November 2002 in Tarlac City after a week-long surveillance on suspected drug peddlers. SPO1 Rodolfo Ramos acted as poseur-buyer and allegedly purchased a sachet of shabu from "Buboy" (later identified as Gerardo Orteza) for P100. Upon giving a pre-arranged signal, the back-up team arrested Orteza and another suspect, "Leng Leng," recovering marked money from Orteza and another sachet of shabu from Leng Leng.

• The Buy-Bust Operation: A police team apprehended suspected drug peddlers on 19 November 2002. Poseur-buyer SPO1 Ramos and an informant approached two suspects, Leng Leng and Buboy. Ramos purchased one sachet of shabu for P100 from Buboy.
• The Arrest and Seizure: After the sale, Ramos gave a pre-arranged signal, prompting the back-up team to rush to the scene and arrest the suspects. A body search yielded the marked money from Buboy and another sachet of shabu from Leng Leng. Buboy later identified himself as Gerardo Orteza. Laboratory examination confirmed both sachets contained methamphetamine hydrochloride.
• The Defense: Orteza claimed that PO2 Lagasca forced him to go with the officers while he was entering his house, promising he would be freed later. Orteza denied selling shabu, speaking to the poseur-buyer, or knowing Leng Leng.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Appellant argued that the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
• Failure to Prove the Sale: Appellant maintained that the prosecution failed to establish the actual transaction or sale of shabu as a fact.
• Non-Presentation of the Poseur-Buyer: Appellant argued that the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer was fatal to the case because the two police officers who testified were positioned at a distance and could not hear the conversation between appellant and the poseur-buyer.

• Elements of the Crime Established: Respondent countered that the requisites of the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs were established by the evidence on record.
• Sufficiency of Eyewitness Testimony: Respondent argued that the unswerving and compatible testimonies of the two members of the buy-bust team sufficed to convict the appellant, despite the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer.
• Weakness of the Defense: Respondent maintained that the appellant's bare denials cannot sway judgment when unsupported by evidence.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Whether the prosecution proved the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt.
• Non-Presentation of Poseur-Buyer: Whether the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer is fatal to the prosecution's case absent any explanation and reliable eyewitness testimony.
• Chain of Custody: Whether the failure of the police officers to comply with the prescribed procedure in the custody of seized drugs affects the identity of the corpus delicti.
• Conspiracy: Whether conspiracy was established to hold appellant liable for the sale of both sachets of shabu recovered from the scene.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Conviction was reversed because the prosecution failed to prove all the elements of the offense beyond reasonable doubt, engendering reasonable doubt that entitled the appellant to an acquittal.
• Non-Presentation of Poseur-Buyer: The non-presentation of the poseur-buyer was fatal to the prosecution. Unlike in previous cases where the absence was excused due to paralysis or involvement in another operation, no explanation was offered for SPO1 Ramos's failure to appear despite being subpoenaed six times. The back-up officers who testified were not reliable eyewitnesses, as they were positioned at a distance, could not hear the conversation, and failed to positively identify the appellant in open court as the seller.
• Chain of Custody: The identity of the corpus delicti was not established with certainty because the apprehending team failed to comply with the procedure requiring the immediate physical inventory and photographing of seized drugs in the presence of the accused. This omission negated the presumption of regular performance of official duty and raised doubt as to whether the drugs examined and presented in court were actually recovered from the appellant.
• Conspiracy: Conspiracy was not established. No proof was adduced to hold appellant liable for the sale of both sachets, especially since the second sachet was confiscated from Leng Leng and not sold, and the information charged the total weight of shabu from both sachets without distinguishing the source.

• Presumption of Innocence — An accused is presumed innocent until the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution must overcome this presumption by presenting the quantum of evidence required and must rest on its own merits, not on the weakness of the defense.
• Elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs — To secure a conviction, the following must be proven: (1) the transaction or sale took place; (2) the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) the buyer and seller were identified. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction.
• Chain of Custody Rule — Any apprehending team having initial control of seized drugs must immediately physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or representative, who must sign the inventory copies. Failure to comply raises doubt on the identity of the corpus delicti and negates the presumption that official duties have been regularly performed.

• "What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused."
• "The non-presentation of the poseur-buyer is fatal only if there is no other eyewitness to the illicit transaction... In this case, though, after the poseur-buyer, SPO1 Ramos, failed to appear in court despite having been subpoenaed six (6) times, the prosecution did not even bother to offer any explanation for his non-appearance..."

• People v. Efren Mateo, G.R. Nos. 147678-87 — Followed as the basis for transferring the case from the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review.
• People v. Lim, 435 Phil. 640 — Followed for the rule that failure to immediately inventory and photograph seized drugs raises doubt on the identity of the corpus delicti.
• People v. Uy, 392 Phil. 773 — Distinguished; non-presentation of the poseur-buyer was excused there because the officer was paralyzed, whereas here, no explanation was offered.
• People v. Ambrosio, G.R. No. 135378 — Distinguished; non-presentation of the poseur-buyer was excused there because she was engaged in another buy-bust operation, unlike here where no justification was provided.
• Zarraga v. People, G.R. No. 162064 — Followed; inconsistencies regarding markings on seized drugs and lack of inventory created reasonable doubt as to the identity of the corpus delicti.

• Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 — Prohibits and penalizes the sale of dangerous drugs regardless of quantity. Applied as the charging provision, but conviction under it was reversed due to failure of proof.

Quisumbing, Carpio, Carpio-Morales, Velasco, Jr.