In People v. Kamad Akmad, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Kamad and Bainhor Akmad for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, despite arguments concerning procedural lapses in the handling of the seized evidence. The Court reiterated that the primary consideration is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs, not strict adherence to procedural requirements. This ruling highlights the judiciary’s focus on substance over form in drug-related cases, ensuring convictions are upheld when the evidence establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt, even if some procedural steps are not perfectly followed.

From Consignment Claims to Conviction: Did a Buy-Bust Operation Secure Justice?

The case originated from a buy-bust operation conducted by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) in Meycauayan, Bulacan, targeting Kamad and Bainhor Akmad based on information about their alleged drug dealing activities. The Akmads were charged with violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The prosecution presented evidence that a transaction occurred wherein PO3 Navarette, acting as a poseur-buyer, received a plastic sachet containing shabu from the Akmads in exchange for money. This led to their arrest and subsequent conviction by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA).

The defense raised several arguments, including the claim that the prosecution’s evidence pointed to a consignment arrangement rather than an outright sale, thus lacking the element of price certain. Additionally, they challenged the procedural integrity of the seizure and custody of the drugs, citing non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. However, the Supreme Court found these arguments unpersuasive, emphasizing that the charge against the Akmads included not only selling but also delivering and distributing dangerous drugs, making the payment of consideration immaterial. The Court also addressed the alleged procedural flaws, invoking the principle of substantial compliance and the preservation of the evidentiary value of the seized items.

The Supreme Court clarified that in prosecuting illegal drug cases, the presentation of marked money is not essential as long as the sale of dangerous drugs is adequately proven and the drug involved in the transaction is presented in court. The critical element is establishing that the transaction or sale occurred, supported by presenting the corpus delicti as evidence. In this case, the prosecution successfully demonstrated the consummated transaction between the poseur-buyer and the accused-appellants.

Moreover, the Court underscored that the accused-appellants were charged with various activities under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, including selling, trading, delivering, and transporting dangerous drugs. This comprehensive charge broadens the scope of the offense beyond mere sale. The provision punishes not only the sale but also the act of delivering prohibited drugs after an offer to buy has been accepted. The Court emphasized that in the distribution of prohibited drugs, payment is not a necessary element; the mere act of distributing the drugs constitutes a punishable offense.

Accused-appellants argued that the lower courts failed to consider procedural flaws committed by the arresting officers in the seizure and custody of drugs, as required by Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II, R.A. No. 9165. Specifically, they claimed that the arresting team failed to conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized item in their presence and in the presence of representatives from the media, the Department of Justice, and an elected public official, who should have signed copies of the inventory. The defense also argued that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody because SPO1 Maung, who prepared the request and delivered the confiscated specimen to the PNP Crime Laboratory, was not presented.

The Supreme Court referenced Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165, which outlines the procedure for handling seized dangerous drugs. The provision requires the apprehending officer to 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, and any elected public official. However, the Court noted that the rules also provide an exception to strict compliance, stating that non-compliance is acceptable under justifiable grounds, provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. This exception acknowledges that strict adherence to procedural requirements is not always feasible and that the focus should remain on ensuring the integrity of the evidence.

The Court emphasized that while a perfect chain of custody is ideal, substantial compliance with the legal requirements is sufficient. Prior rulings have consistently held that even if arresting officers fail to strictly comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, such procedural lapses are not fatal and do not render the seized items inadmissible. The critical factor is preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, which are crucial in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused. To ensure admissibility, the prosecution must present records or testimony that account for the whereabouts of the dangerous drugs from the time of seizure to their presentation in court. As long as the chain of custody remains unbroken, the accused’s guilt is not affected, even if procedural requirements are not faithfully observed.

In this case, the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of custody over the seized drug. After the arrest and seizure, PO3 Navarette conducted an inventory in the presence of barangay officials Princesita Gaspar and Ma. Theresa Lienado. PO3 Navarette marked the item with his initials, prepared a Receipt of Property Seized, and had it signed by the barangay officials. These actions were conducted in the presence of the accused-appellants, who declined to sign the receipt. Subsequently, a request for laboratory examination was prepared, and the item was transmitted to the crime laboratory for examination.

Forensic Chemical Officer Nellson Sta. Maria received the seized item and conducted a chemistry examination. His Chemistry Report No. D-727-2003 confirmed that the specimen tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. The Supreme Court emphasized that the substance marked, tested, and offered in evidence was the same item seized from the accused-appellants. This was further supported by the defense’s admission during the pre-trial conference regarding the existence, due execution, and genuineness of the request for laboratory examination, the Chemistry Report, and the submitted specimen. Therefore, it was evident that the integrity of the evidence was preserved.

The Court reiterated that the integrity of evidence is presumed to have been preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with. The accused-appellants bear the burden of proving that the evidence was tampered with to overcome the presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers. The accused-appellants failed to provide any plausible reason to impute ill motive on the part of the arresting officers, and the testimony of PO3 Navarette was deemed credible. The defense primarily relied on denial and the alleged broken chain of custody, which the Court deemed insufficient to overturn the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court found no reason to modify or set aside the decisions of the lower courts, affirming the conviction of Kamad and Bainhor Akmad for violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The Court reiterated that the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs is paramount, and procedural lapses do not necessarily invalidate a conviction if the chain of custody is unbroken and the guilt of the accused is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The penalty imposed, life imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00), was deemed in conformity with the provisions of the law.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the accused-appellants were guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, despite arguments concerning the absence of marked money and procedural lapses in the chain of custody of the seized drugs. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, emphasizing the importance of preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.
Does the absence of marked money invalidate a buy-bust operation?	No, the absence of marked money does not invalidate a buy-bust operation as long as the sale of dangerous drugs is adequately proven and the drug subject of the transaction is presented before the court. The material fact is the proof that the transaction or sale took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence.
What is the importance of the chain of custody in drug cases?	The chain of custody is crucial to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs are preserved. It refers to the sequence of transfer and custody of the evidence, from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court, ensuring that the evidence presented is the same item seized from the accused.
What happens if there are procedural lapses in the handling of seized drugs?	While strict compliance with the procedural requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is ideal, non-compliance does not automatically render the seized items inadmissible. As long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved, the evidence remains admissible, and the accused can still be convicted.
What is the legal basis for punishing the distribution of dangerous drugs?	Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 punishes not only the sale but also the mere act of delivery of prohibited drugs after the offer to buy by the entrapping officer has been accepted by the seller. The law considers the act of distributing prohibited drugs as a punishable offense, regardless of whether any consideration (payment) is involved.
What is the role of barangay officials in the seizure of drugs?	Barangay officials are often involved in the inventory and documentation of seized drugs to ensure transparency and accountability. Their presence helps establish the authenticity of the seized items and provides an additional layer of verification for the proper handling of evidence.
What must the prosecution prove to secure a conviction in a drug case?	To secure a conviction, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offense, which includes establishing the identity of the accused, the elements of the crime (e.g., sale, possession, or distribution of dangerous drugs), and the integrity of the evidence presented.
What is the penalty for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under R.A. No. 9165?	Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 provides the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten Million Pesos (PI0,000,000.00) for the illegal sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution, and transportation of dangerous drugs.

In summary, the Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Kamad Akmad reaffirms the principle that while procedural compliance in drug cases is important, the primary focus should be on preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. The ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding convictions in drug cases where guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt, even if there are minor procedural lapses.

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. Kamad Akmad, G.R. No. 195194, November 25, 2015