In People v. Presas, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Bertha Presas for the illegal sale of shabu, emphasizing the importance of establishing each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court underscored that while strict compliance with the chain of custody rule is preferred, non-compliance does not automatically invalidate the seizure if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. This ruling highlights the balance between procedural requirements and the substantive proof of guilt in drug-related offenses.

Did the Police Secure the Evidence? Weighing the Chain of Custody

This case originated from a buy-bust operation conducted by the Makati City Police Station Anti-Illegal Drug Special Operation – Sub Task Force, based on an informant’s tip about Bertha Presas, also known as “Beng,” selling drugs in Barangay Pinagkaisahan, Makati City. During the operation, MADAC operative Gerardo Fariñas acted as the poseur-buyer and purchased shabu from Presas using marked money. Upon a pre-arranged signal, the buy-bust team arrested Presas, and another plastic sachet was recovered from her. The seized items were marked and sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory, where they tested positive for shabu. Presas was subsequently charged with illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs.

The central legal question revolved around whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven Presas’ guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly concerning the chain of custody of the seized drugs. Presas challenged the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, questioned the non-presentation of the forensic chemist, and argued that the police failed to comply with the procedures for handling seized drugs, specifically the lack of physical inventory and photographs. The defense argued that the prosecution’s failure to strictly adhere to the chain of custody rule cast doubt on the integrity of the evidence, thus warranting an acquittal.

The Supreme Court, in affirming the lower courts’ decisions, emphasized that in prosecutions for illegal sale of shabu, the prosecution must prove: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment made. All these elements must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, the Court found that the prosecution successfully proved these elements through the testimony of the poseur-buyer and the corroborating evidence presented.

The Court highlighted the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, particularly MADAC operative Fariñas, whose testimony was crucial in establishing the sale transaction. The Court noted that trial courts are in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses, as they can observe their demeanor and conduct during trial. Unless there are glaring errors or unsupported conclusions, appellate courts generally defer to the trial court’s findings on credibility. As explained in *People v. Pagkalinawan*:

It is a fundamental rule that findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors; gross misapprehension of facts; or speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings.

Regarding the non-presentation of the forensic chemist, the Court pointed out that the defense had stipulated to dispense with the chemist’s testimony during the pre-trial conference. Moreover, the Court clarified that the report of an official forensic chemist enjoys the presumption of regularity and is considered prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein, pursuant to Section 44 of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court. In this respect, the Court has held that the corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases is the drug itself, and proof beyond doubt of its identity is essential, as explained in *People v. Quebral*:

The corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases constitutes the dangerous drug itself. This means that proof beyond doubt of the identity of the prohibited drug is essential.

The Court then addressed the appellant’s argument regarding the chain of custody of the seized drugs, referring to Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, which outlines the procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated illegal drugs. The law requires the apprehending team to immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official.

However, the Court also noted the proviso in the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, which states that non-compliance with these requirements does not automatically invalidate the seizure if justifiable grounds exist and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The Court emphasized that the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items is crucial to establishing the corpus delicti. As the Court stated in *People vs Rivera*:

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.

In this case, the Court found that the prosecution had adequately preserved the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. Fariñas marked the plastic sachet of shabu immediately after the sale, in the presence of Presas and the other operatives. The seized items were then brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination on the same day. Both prosecution witnesses were able to identify and explain the markings in court. The Court highlighted that the failure of the MADAC operatives to take photographs and make an inventory of the drugs was not fatal, as the prosecution was able to establish an unbroken chain of custody and prove the concurrence of all elements of the illegal sale of shabu.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the illegal sale of shabu by Bertha Presas beyond a reasonable doubt, considering challenges to the credibility of witnesses and the chain of custody of the seized drugs.
What are the elements of illegal sale of shabu that must be proven?	The prosecution must prove the identity of the buyer and seller, the object (shabu), and the consideration (payment). They must also prove the delivery of the shabu and the payment made for it.
What is the “chain of custody” in drug cases?	The chain of custody refers to the documented process of tracking the seized drugs from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court as evidence, ensuring its integrity and preventing contamination or alteration.
What happens if the police fail to follow the chain of custody procedures?	While strict compliance is preferred, non-compliance does not automatically invalidate the seizure if the prosecution can demonstrate justifiable grounds for the deviation and prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved.
Why was the testimony of the forensic chemist not presented in court?	The defense and prosecution stipulated during the pre-trial conference to dispense with the testimony of the forensic chemist. This means that both parties agreed that the chemist’s testimony was not necessary for the case.
What is the legal significance of the forensic chemist’s report?	The forensic chemist’s report, which confirms that the seized substance is indeed shabu, enjoys the presumption of regularity and is considered prima facie evidence of the facts stated in the report.
What was the appellant’s defense in this case?	Bertha Presas denied selling shabu and claimed that she was apprehended without any evidence found on her, suggesting that the evidence was planted.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling?	The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ decision, finding Bertha Presas guilty of illegal sale of shabu. The Court emphasized the importance of proving each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt and the need to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Presas reinforces the importance of meticulously following the procedures for handling seized drugs while also recognizing that minor deviations do not automatically invalidate a conviction if the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence are preserved. This ruling serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies to adhere to the chain of custody rule to ensure the admissibility of evidence in court and to prosecutors to diligently establish each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

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 vs. Presas, G.R. No. 182525, March 02, 2011