In the Philippines, convictions for illegal drug sale and possession hinge on solid evidence and adherence to legal procedures. The Supreme Court’s ruling in People v. Malik Manalao underscores this principle. It affirms that to secure a conviction, the prosecution must convincingly demonstrate the elements of the crime and meticulously maintain the integrity of the evidence, ensuring the accused’s rights are protected throughout the legal process.

Entrapment or Frame-Up? Unraveling Drug Sale and Chain of Custody

The case of People of the Philippines v. Malik Manalao y Alauya, G.R. No. 187496, decided on February 6, 2013, revolves around an appeal challenging a lower court’s decision. Malik Manalao was convicted of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. These sections pertain to the sale and possession of dangerous drugs, specifically methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as “shabu.” The prosecution presented evidence that Manalao was caught in a buy-bust operation selling shabu to a poseur-buyer. He was also found in possession of additional amounts of the drug during the arrest.

Manalao contested his conviction, primarily arguing that the prosecution failed to prove the illegal sale beyond a reasonable doubt and that the chain of custody of the seized drugs was not properly established. He claimed that the sale of drugs was not adequately proven because the prosecution’s witness, PO1 Solarta, did not directly witness the transaction. Moreover, he argued the civilian agent involved in the buy-bust operation did not testify. Manalao also asserted that the buy-bust team did not follow proper procedure in handling the seized drugs, particularly concerning marking, inventory, and photographing the drugs immediately at the scene.

The Supreme Court, in its decision, emphasized the elements necessary to prosecute an illegal sale of drugs case successfully. The Court stated,

“(1) [T]he identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) [T]he delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.”

This means the prosecution must prove the actual sale of dangerous drugs occurred, and the seized drugs (the corpus delicti) must be presented as evidence. The Court found that the prosecution had adequately established these elements in Manalao’s case.

PO1 Solarta positively identified Manalao as the seller of the shabu. According to PO1 Solarta, he knew Manalao even before the buy-bust operation. Manalao was caught in flagrante delicto, meaning “in the very act of committing the crime,” during the entrapment operation. The Supreme Court cited the case of People v. Legaspi, where it stated,

“The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummated the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and Legaspi.”

The Court underscored that the delivery of the shabu and the receipt of the marked money completed the transaction.

Regarding the non-presentation of the civilian agent, the Court relied on People v. Berdadero, stating that it is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution’s case. The Court clarified,

“The non-presentation of the poseur-buyer is fatal only if there is no other eyewitness to the illicit transaction… Thus, the fact that the poseur-buyer was not presented does not weaken the evidence for the prosecution.”

This indicates that as long as there are other credible witnesses, the absence of the poseur-buyer’s testimony does not automatically invalidate the prosecution’s case.

The Court also addressed Manalao’s challenge to the chain of custody of evidence. It cited Paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, which outlines the procedure for handling confiscated drugs. The law states the apprehending team must physically inventory and photograph the drugs immediately after seizure in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official. However, the Court noted that strict compliance with this procedure is not always required.

Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 further explains that non-compliance with these requirements, if justifiable, does not invalidate the seizure and custody of the items, “as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.” The Court reiterated its stance in People v. Llanita and Buar, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the chain of custody. This ensures the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved for determining the accused’s guilt or innocence.

The “chain of custody” refers to the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of the seized drugs from the time of seizure to presentation in court. The Court outlined the links that must be proven to establish the chain of custody in a buy-bust operation, specifically, the seizure and marking of the drug, the turnover of the drug to the investigating officer, the turnover by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist, and the turnover and submission of the marked drug to the court.

In Manalao’s case, the Court found that the prosecution had maintained the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs. The Court emphasized that unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or tampering with the evidence, there is a presumption that the police officers who handled the seized drugs performed their duties properly. In this case, Manalao failed to overcome this presumption.

The Court also addressed the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The elements needed to prove this charge are that the accused possessed an item identified as a prohibited drug, the possession was not authorized by law, and the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. The prosecution demonstrated that Manalao possessed three decks of shabu, which were obtained during a lawful search incident to his arrest for the illegal sale of drugs. Manalao failed to show any legal authority for his possession of the drugs, leading to his conviction for illegal possession. Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding Manalao’s conviction.

FAQs

What were the main charges against Malik Manalao?	Manalao was charged with and convicted of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 for the sale and possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).
What is a “buy-bust operation”?	A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment employed by law enforcement where police officers, acting as buyers, purchase illegal drugs from a suspect to catch them in the act of selling.
What is the meaning of “corpus delicti” in drug cases?	In drug cases, “corpus delicti” refers to the actual dangerous drug that was seized, which is essential evidence to prove that a crime was committed.
Why did Manalao argue that the drug sale was not proven beyond reasonable doubt?	Manalao argued that because the prosecution’s primary witness did not see the actual exchange of drugs and money, and the civilian agent did not testify, the sale was not sufficiently proven.
What is “chain of custody” in the context of drug evidence?	Chain of custody refers to the documented process of tracking seized drugs from the moment of confiscation to its presentation in court. It ensures the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence.
What are the required steps in the chain of custody according to Republic Act No. 9165?	The law requires immediate inventory and photographing of the seized drugs in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official.
What happens if the police fail to strictly comply with the chain of custody requirements?	The Supreme Court has clarified that strict compliance is not always required. As long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, non-compliance can be excused.
What elements must be proven for illegal possession of dangerous drugs?	The prosecution must prove the accused possessed an item identified as a prohibited drug, the possession was unauthorized, and the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.
Why was Manalao also charged with illegal possession in addition to illegal sale?	Manalao was found with additional decks of shabu during the search incident to his lawful arrest for illegal sale, which constituted a separate offense of illegal possession.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Malik Manalao offers critical insight into the complexities of drug-related prosecutions in the Philippines. It reinforces the importance of meticulous law enforcement procedures and solid evidence to secure convictions, balancing the fight against drug crimes with the protection of individual rights. This case illustrates the necessity of establishing each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly the chain of custody, in ensuring justice is served effectively.

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 v. Malik Manalao y Alauya, G.R. No. 187496, February 6, 2013