In the Philippines, a conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs requires that the prosecution establish an unbroken chain of custody over the seized drugs. This means the state must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the substance confiscated from the accused is the same substance presented in court as evidence. In People v. Dats Mamalumpon y Bañez, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, underscoring that minor inconsistencies in police testimony do not automatically invalidate a conviction if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs are preserved.

From Buy-Bust to Conviction: Did Police Procedures Secure the Evidence?

The case began with a buy-bust operation in Quiapo, Manila, where Dats Mamalumpon was caught selling shabu to an undercover police officer. The prosecution presented testimonies from the police officers involved, asserting that Mamalumpon handed over a plastic sachet containing the illegal drug in exchange for P200.00. This led to his arrest and subsequent charge for violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

Mamalumpon contested the charges, claiming he was merely resting when police officers barged into his home, looking for another person, and eventually arrested him. He argued that the police officers failed to comply with the standard procedures for the custody and disposition of the confiscated drugs as provided in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. Specifically, he pointed out the lack of immediate marking of the evidence, the absence of an inventory, and the failure to photograph the prohibited drug in his presence.

Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 outlines the procedure for handling seized drugs:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.

Despite these procedural lapses, the trial court found Mamalumpon guilty, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The appellate court emphasized that the prosecution had proven all the elements of the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs and that the chain of custody of the seized illegal drug was not broken. Mamalumpon then elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the police officers had not followed the proper procedures, thereby casting doubt on the integrity of the evidence.

The Supreme Court, in its review, acknowledged the procedural lapses cited by Mamalumpon. However, the Court emphasized that the failure to strictly comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 does not automatically render the seized items inadmissible as evidence. The implementing rules of the law provide a crucial proviso:

Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.

Building on this principle, the Supreme Court considered whether the prosecution had demonstrated that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized shabu were preserved, despite the procedural lapses. The Court noted that the poseur-buyer, SPO1 Arevalo, testified that he received the plastic sachet of shabu from Mamalumpon along with the marked money. He also testified that he had custody of the seized item from the crime scene and marked it with the initials “DMB.”

The Supreme Court also addressed the inconsistencies in SPO1 Arevalo’s testimony, particularly regarding who initiated the encounter. The Court dismissed these inconsistencies as minor and immaterial, stating that they did not detract from the proven elements of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. Instead, the Court highlighted that minor inconsistencies in witness declarations could even enhance their truthfulness by dispelling any suspicion of rehearsed testimony.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court focused on the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items to establish the corpus delicti. The Court agreed with the appellate court’s observation that the chain of custody remained intact. SPO1 Arevalo’s testimony, corroborated by other police officers, established that the item seized during the buy-bust operation was the same one that was tested, introduced, and identified in the trial court.

The defense presented by Mamalumpon, a bare denial, was deemed insufficient to overcome the evidence presented by the prosecution. The Supreme Court reiterated that a bare denial is an inherently weak defense and is often viewed with disfavor in drug-related cases. The Court also invoked the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty by the police officers, absent any evidence of ill motive or bad faith.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the key elements for illegal sale had to be proven in the case. These elements are (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. All elements for illegal sale were duly established with accused-appellant being caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu through a buy-bust operation conducted by the District Special Operation Group of the WPD.

For these reasons, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding Mamalumpon’s conviction for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The Court found that the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 were correctly imposed, given the established facts and the relevant provisions of the law.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the failure to strictly comply with the chain of custody requirements under R.A. No. 9165 invalidated the conviction for illegal sale of drugs. The court focused on whether the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved, despite procedural lapses.
What is a buy-bust operation?	A buy-bust operation is an entrapment technique commonly used by law enforcement to apprehend individuals involved in illegal drug activities. It typically involves an undercover officer posing as a buyer to purchase drugs from a suspect, leading to an arrest upon completion of the transaction.
What is the chain of custody in drug cases?	The chain of custody refers to the documented process of tracking seized evidence, particularly drugs, from the moment of confiscation to its presentation in court. It ensures the integrity and identity of the evidence, preventing contamination or tampering.
What does Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 require?	Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 outlines the procedures for handling seized drugs, including immediate inventory, photography in the presence of the accused, and representatives from the media and DOJ. However, non-compliance does not automatically invalidate the seizure if the integrity of the evidence is preserved.
What happens if the police fail to follow the chain of custody?	If the police fail to follow the chain of custody, the admissibility of the seized drugs as evidence may be challenged in court. However, the evidence may still be admitted if the prosecution can demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs were preserved.
What is the ‘corpus delicti’ in a drug case?	The corpus delicti refers to the body of the crime, which in a drug case, is the actual illegal drug. The prosecution must establish the existence of the illegal drug and its connection to the accused to prove the crime.
What is the significance of the ‘presumption of regularity’?	The presumption of regularity is a legal principle that assumes public officials, like police officers, perform their duties in accordance with the law. This presumption can be overturned if there is evidence of bad faith or ill motive.
What are the penalties for violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165?	Violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, which prohibits the sale, trading, or delivery of dangerous drugs, carries a penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P1,000,000.00.

The Mamalumpon case reinforces the importance of adhering to proper procedures in drug cases while also acknowledging that minor deviations do not automatically invalidate a conviction. The focus remains on ensuring the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs, safeguarding against tampering or contamination. This decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to both upholding the law and protecting individual rights in the fight against illegal drugs.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. DATS MAMALUMPON Y BAÑEZ, G.R. No. 210452, August 26, 2015