In People v. Amy Dasigan y Oliva, the Supreme Court clarified the nuances between illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Republic Act No. 9165. The Court ruled that while the accused was not guilty of selling drugs because the transaction was not completed, she was guilty of illegal possession of drugs. This decision highlights the importance of proving both the sale and possession elements separately in drug-related cases. This distinction affects how drug enforcement agencies pursue cases and how defendants are charged and convicted.

From Buy-Bust to Possession: What Happens When the Sale Fails?

The case began with a confidential informant reporting that Amy Dasigan was delivering methamphetamine hydrochloride, or “shabu,” near the La Trinidad Trading Post. A buy-bust operation was set up where PO2 Arieltino Corpuz acted as the poseur-buyer. Dasigan handed over two sachets of suspected shabu to PO2 Corpuz but was arrested before she could receive the PHP 2,000 payment. Following her arrest, a search revealed four more sachets of shabu in her possession. The key legal question centered on whether the elements of illegal sale were met, and if not, whether the evidence supported a conviction for illegal possession.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Dasigan of both illegal possession and illegal sale of shabu. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Dasigan argued that the prosecution failed to establish the integrity and chain of custody of the seized items. She also claimed her guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Her argument hinged on the procedural lapses in handling the seized drugs, particularly the marking and inventory processes. The Supreme Court partly agreed with Dasigan, leading to a nuanced decision on the charges against her.

One of the critical aspects of the case was the handling of the seized drugs. Dasigan argued that the prosecution failed to preserve the integrity of the seized items and establish an unbroken chain of custody. She highlighted that no photographs were taken during the arrest, and the inventory was not conducted immediately after her arrest in the presence of required public officials. According to Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the apprehending team should 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. Dasigan contended that the absence of these safeguards compromised the evidence against her.

Despite these procedural lapses, the Supreme Court referenced past rulings, such as in People v. Torres, which emphasized that the most important factor is preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. The Court acknowledged that while a perfect chain of custody is ideal, it is often impossible to achieve. The Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 also state that non-compliance with these requirements, under justifiable grounds, does not necessarily invalidate the seizure if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The Court found that the prosecution had sufficiently established the integrity of the drugs.

In this case, PO2 Corpuz handed the seized items to PCI Luisito Meris, who retained possession until they reached the PDEA Office. At the office, the arresting officers marked the items with their initials. PCI Meris then submitted the items to SPO3 Romeo L. Abordo, Sr., the Evidence Custodian of PDEA-CAR, who prepared the inventory and request for laboratory examination. SPO3 Abordo, Sr. then brought the request and seized items to the PNP Crime Laboratory. PSI Edward Gayados, the Forensic Chemist, confirmed that the seized items tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. The Court noted that PO2 Corpuz and SPO2 Cabily Agbayani identified the sachets in court based on their initials, thereby establishing a clear link between the seized items and the evidence presented.

As for the marking of the seized items at the police station rather than at the point of arrest, the Supreme Court cited People v. Loks, noting that marking the seized substance immediately upon arrival at the police station complies with the marking requirement. The explanation provided by PCI Meris, that the place of arrest was notorious and that the officers feared back-up for the accused, justified the delay in marking. The Court concluded that there was no significant disruption in the confiscation, handling, custody, and examination of the shabu, reinforcing the belief that the shabu seized from Dasigan was the same shabu presented as evidence.

The Supreme Court then turned to the elements of the crimes charged. For illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the prosecution must prove that: (1) the accused possessed an item identified as a prohibited drug; (2) the possession was not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. In Criminal Case No. 07-CR-6702, all these elements were met. The four plastic sachets containing shabu were found on Dasigan during a search after her arrest for illegal sale. She did not demonstrate legal authority to possess the shabu, and her actions indicated that she freely and consciously possessed the drug. The Court referenced People v. Montevirgen, reiterating that a person lawfully arrested may be searched for anything used or constituting proof of the commission of an offense without a warrant.

However, the Supreme Court found that the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, were not fully met. The critical element missing was the consummation of the sale, which requires both the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it. PO2 Corpuz testified that although he had prepared the marked money, he did not hand it over to Dasigan. The pre-arranged signal was to arrest her as soon as she handed over the shabu. The Court stated that in illegal sales cases, the sale must actually take place. What consummates the buy-bust transaction is the delivery of the drugs to the poseur-buyer and the seller’s receipt of the marked money. The Court noted that although the parties may have agreed on the price and intended payment, these do not prove a consummated sale. The Court referenced People v. Hong Yeng E and Tsien Tsien Chua, where a similar situation occurred. The Supreme Court held that because Dasigan did not receive the marked money, the sale was not consummated. Looking at the money is not enough to transfer ownership.

The Supreme Court emphasized that possession is necessarily included in the sale of dangerous drugs. Therefore, while Dasigan was acquitted of illegal sale, she remained liable for illegal possession. In Criminal Case No. 07-CR-6702, Dasigan was correctly convicted of illegal possession of dangerous or prohibited drugs totaling 0.28 grams. In Criminal Case No. 07-CR-6703, although the illegal sale charge failed, Dasigan was still criminally liable for illegal possession of dangerous or prohibited drugs totaling 0.15 grams. In total, she was in possession of 0.43 grams, which falls under Sec. 11 (3), Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. The penalty for possession of less than five grams of shabu is imprisonment from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years, plus a fine ranging from P300,000.00 to P400,000.00.

Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court affirmed the RTC’s originally imposed penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, as maximum, and a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00). The penalty was deemed appropriate for the illegal possession of shabu in the total weight of 0.43 grams, which is still less than five grams.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Amy Dasigan was guilty of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, considering that the sale was not consummated but she was found in possession of the drugs. The court needed to determine if the elements of both crimes were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
What is the chain of custody rule?	The chain of custody rule, outlined in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, ensures the integrity of seized drugs by requiring proper documentation and handling from the moment of seizure to presentation in court. It involves inventorying and photographing the drugs in the presence of the accused and other official witnesses.
Why was Amy Dasigan acquitted of illegal sale?	Dasigan was acquitted of illegal sale because the transaction was not consummated. The poseur-buyer, PO2 Corpuz, did not hand over the marked money in exchange for the shabu, thus the exchange element of the sale was missing.
What are the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs?	The elements of illegal possession are: (1) the accused is in possession of an item identified as a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. All these elements were proven in Dasigan’s case.
What is the significance of marking the seized drugs?	Marking the seized drugs helps ensure that the evidence presented in court is the same as that seized from the accused. The marking should ideally be done immediately upon seizure, but delays can be justified under certain circumstances.
What was the justification for the delayed marking of the drugs in this case?	The delayed marking was justified by PCI Meris’s testimony that the area of arrest was known to be notorious, and the officers feared potential back-up for the accused. This concern for safety allowed for the marking to be done at the police station instead of immediately at the scene.
How did the court apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law in this case?	The Indeterminate Sentence Law allows the court to impose a sentence with a minimum and maximum term, both of which must be within the limits prescribed by law. The court maintained the original sentence of 12 years and one day to 14 years and eight months.
What was the total weight of the shabu for which Dasigan was convicted?	Dasigan was ultimately convicted for illegal possession of shabu totaling 0.43 grams. This weight was the sum of the amounts involved in both the attempted sale and the additional sachets found in her possession.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Amy Dasigan y Oliva clarifies the critical distinctions between illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. It underscores the need for law enforcement to ensure that each element of these crimes is proven to secure a conviction. The case also highlights the importance of following proper procedures in handling seized drugs to maintain the integrity of the evidence. Non-compliance with these procedures does not automatically invalidate a conviction if the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs are properly preserved.

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. AMY DASIGAN Y OLIVA, G.R. No. 206229, February 04, 2015