Sales vs. People

A conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs cannot stand where the buy-bust narrative is inherently improbable and the apprehending team fails to comply with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 without justifiable explanation.

An informant reported to the District Drug Enforcement Unit (DDEU) that a certain "Susan" was peddling prohibited drugs along Scout Tobias Street, Quezon City. A buy-bust team was formed, with PO1 Teresita B. Reyes acting as poseur buyer using a marked ₱500 bill. PO1 Teresita alleged that petitioner sold her a sachet of shabu. Petitioner denied the sale, claiming she was unlawfully arrested without a warrant inside a friend's house while playing cards, and subsequently detained and harassed.

• The Buy-Bust Operation: On November 5, 2002, an informant reported petitioner selling drugs along Scout Tobias Street. A team was formed; PO1 Teresita was given marked buy-bust money. At the scene, the informant introduced PO1 Teresita as a friend wanting to "score." Petitioner allegedly asked how much, took the ₱500, and immediately handed over a sachet of shabu. Another person, Danilo D. Sanchez, appeared wanting to buy. PO1 Teresita gave the pre-arranged signal, embraced petitioner, and identified herself as police. Back-up rushed in; the marked money was recovered from petitioner.
• The Defense Version: Petitioner claimed she was visiting a friend at a house in Kamias, Quezon City on the evening of November 4, 2002, playing cards, when armed men barged in without a warrant, searched the house, arrested her, and took her phone, jewelry, and cash. She was brought to Camp Karingal, detained, prevented from contacting a lawyer, and repeatedly asked about drug pushers.
• Laboratory Results: The sachet from petitioner tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), weighing 0.14 gram.

• Improbability of the Buy-Bust: Petitioner argued that the testimony of PO1 Teresita regarding the buy-bust operation was improbable and incredible.
• Non-Compliance with Chain of Custody: Petitioner maintained that, assuming a buy-bust occurred, the police team failed to comply with the legal guidelines concerning her arrest and the confiscation and custody of the illegal drugs.

• Denial of the Petition: The Office of the Solicitor General countered that the petition lacked merit, relying on the lower courts' assessment of the prosecution's evidence.

• Credibility of the Buy-Bust: Whether the prosecution's version of the buy-bust operation is credible and consistent with common experience.
• Chain of Custody: Whether the failure of the police team to comply with the chain of custody requirements under R.A. No. 9165, particularly the physical inventory and photography of the seized items, is fatal to the prosecution's case.

• Credibility of the Buy-Bust: The buy-bust narrative was rejected as contrary to common experience. It is highly improbable for a drug pusher to peddle drugs openly along a busy street in broad daylight, and to immediately and unhesitatingly sell drugs to a complete stranger introduced by an informant whom the poseur buyer had just met that day.
• Chain of Custody: The conviction was reversed due to the fatal omission in following the chain of custody rule. The police failed to conduct a physical inventory or photograph the seized sachet and buy-bust money in the presence of the petitioner, her counsel, a media representative, and a DOJ representative, as mandated by law, and offered no justification for this non-compliance. The identity of the dangerous drug, which is the corpus delicti, was not established with unwavering exactitude.

• Chain of Custody Rule — Requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It includes testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, ensuring every person who touched the exhibit describes how and from whom it was received, where it was, what happened to it, and the precautions taken to ensure no change in condition or opportunity for someone outside the chain to possess it. Applied to require physical inventory and photography of seized drugs in the presence of required witnesses.
• Corpus Delicti in Dangerous Drugs Cases — The dangerous drug itself is the corpus delicti of the crime. It is essential that the prohibited drug confiscated is the very same substance offered in court, and its identity must be established with unwavering exactitude.

• "In all prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, the existence of all dangerous drugs is a sine qua non for conviction. The dangerous drug is the very corpus delicti of the crime of violation of the said Act."
• "The 'chain of custody' requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed."

• People v. Pagaura — Cited to emphasize that peddling prohibited drugs is a nefarious business carried on with utmost secrecy, making it contrary to common experience for a pusher to boldly present wares to total strangers or sell openly in broad daylight.
• Malillin v. People — Cited for the definition and requirements of the chain of custody rule, including testimony about every link in the chain and the precautions taken to prevent tampering.

• Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 — Sale of Dangerous Drugs. Petitioner was charged under this provision.
• Section 21, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 — Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs. The apprehending team's failure to comply with the physical inventory and photography requirements of this section, without justification, was fatal to the prosecution's case.

Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Dante O. Tinga, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Diosdado M. Peralta