The Supreme Court affirmed Jalil Lamama’s conviction for selling shabu, reinforcing the validity of buy-bust operations when the chain of custody of seized drugs is unbroken. This ruling emphasizes that minor deviations from procedural requirements do not invalidate drug convictions if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. Practically, this means law enforcement’s adherence to protocol is crucial, but not absolute, in prosecuting drug offenses, and that substantial evidence of the crime, such as eyewitness testimony and forensic analysis, can outweigh procedural imperfections.

Drug Deal on Wheels: When is a Buy-Bust Valid Despite Protocol Lapses?

This case revolves around the arrest and conviction of Jalil Lamama for the illegal sale of shabu. On October 29, 2004, a buy-bust operation was conducted by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) in Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, leading to Lamama’s apprehension. The prosecution presented evidence that PO2 Velasquez, acting as a poseur-buyer, purchased three plastic sachets containing shabu from Lamama for P100,000.00. The defense countered with a claim of frame-up, arguing that Lamama was merely present at the scene and had no intention to sell drugs. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Lamama, and the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision. The core legal question is whether the buy-bust operation was valid, considering the alleged deviations from the standard procedures outlined in Republic Act No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, emphasizing that the essential elements of the crime – the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration of the sale, and the delivery of the thing sold and the payment – were sufficiently proven. The Court underscored the significance of establishing that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation of the corpus delicti, which in this case was the shabu itself. PO2 Velasquez’s testimony detailed the transaction:

PROS. BELTRAN

x x x

Q And after seeing him (Lamama) Mr. Witness, what did you do next?

A The voluntary civilian informant introduced me as a good buyer, Sir

Q What is the response of Aka Jap (Lamama)?

A He said “I have here only 100 grams and it costs Php 150,000.00.” and I replied, I have only here Php 100,000.00 (witness demonstrated by showing the portion of the boodle money).

Q Will you demonstrate how did you show to Aka Jap the buy-bust money?

A (Witness demonstrated by showing the envelope with the portion of the envelope with boodle money No. 1,000.)

Q After you have shown that to Aka Jap, what is the response of Aka Jap to your proposal?

A Since my money is only Php 100,000.00, I told him that if he will trust me, my friend, the civilian informant will guarantee the remaining balance will be paid after two (2) days.

Q And what was the response of Aka Jap to you?

A After few minutes of conversation, Aka Jap agreed that I will pay the balance after two (2) days, sir.

Q What happened next?

A Aka Jap opened the tool box of his motor and got from inside three (3) plastic sachets containing shabu, sir.

Q What happened next?

A And the shabu was handed over to me sir.

The defense argued that the buy-bust money was not dusted with ultra-violet powder, there was no photograph of Lamama with the seized shabu taken immediately after his arrest, no physical inventory of the seized shabu was made in his presence or that of his counsel, and the marking of the seized shabu was made inside the PDEA office, not at the place of seizure. However, the Court found that these procedural lapses did not invalidate the buy-bust operation. The Court emphasized that the chain of custody of the seized drugs was unbroken, and the integrity of the evidence was preserved. It also noted that:

Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 addresses the contingency of the law enforcers being unable to literally meet the requirements – like marking, photographing and inventorying at the place of the arrest and seizure – by providing the saving mechanism 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.”

The Court recognized that there were valid reasons for conducting the marking, photographing, and inventorying at the PDEA Station instead of at the place of arrest. PO2 Velasquez explained that they had to leave the scene immediately after the arrest to avoid a commotion or reprisal, as Lamama was a notorious person who could have cohorts around. The documents and instruments needed for the process were inside the PDEA Station. Furthermore, they sought the assistance of officials from Barangay Tebeng, where the PDEA Station was located, to avoid leaks to Lamama’s associates. The Supreme Court has consistently held that non-compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 21, Article II of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and its IRR is not a fatal flaw that would render the arrest illegal or the items seized inadmissible, provided that the elements of the offense are proven, and the integrity of the dangerous drugs seized as evidence remains intact.

The Court also addressed the issue of the informant’s testimony. Lamama argued that the RTC and CA erred in believing PO2 Velasquez’s testimony about the informant’s past drug dealing activities. The Court stated that the presentation of the informant was not necessary for a finding of guilt, as the poseur-buyer himself transacted with the seller. The informant’s testimony would merely corroborate the testimony of PO2 Velasquez, who had already testified on the illegal sale. The Supreme Court has often considered the security concerns of informants, recognizing the need to protect their identities and preserve their invaluable service to law enforcement.

The Court also dismissed the argument that the absence of ultra-violet powder on the buy-bust money invalidated the operation. It stated that the dusting of the buy-bust money with ultra-violet powder is not indispensable for the prosecution of illegal sale of shabu. The function of dusting the buy-bust money with ultra-violet powder is for identification purposes, to determine if the accused handled the money in exchange for the illegal drugs. In this case, the Prosecution was able to positively identify the buy-bust money recovered from Lamama as the same bills bearing the initials of PO2 Velasquez.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding Lamama’s conviction for the illegal sale of shabu. The Court emphasized that the essential elements of the crime were proven, and the integrity of the evidence was preserved, despite some procedural lapses. The Court’s decision reinforces the validity of buy-bust operations as a tool for combating illegal drug activities, provided that law enforcement agencies adhere to the requirements of the law and safeguard the integrity of the evidence seized.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the buy-bust operation that led to Jalil Lamama’s arrest and conviction for illegal sale of shabu was valid, considering alleged deviations from standard procedures outlined in Republic Act No. 9165.
What is a buy-bust operation?	A buy-bust operation is a technique employed by law enforcement agents to apprehend individuals involved in illegal drug activities, where an undercover officer or informant poses as a buyer to purchase illegal drugs from the suspect.
What is the “chain of custody” in drug cases?	The chain of custody refers to the documented process of tracking seized evidence (in this case, the shabu) from the moment of seizure through testing and presentation in court, ensuring its integrity and preventing contamination or alteration.
What is the significance of Section 21 of RA 9165?	Section 21 of RA 9165 outlines the procedures for the custody and disposition of seized dangerous drugs, requiring physical inventory and photography of the drugs immediately after seizure in the presence of the accused and other witnesses.
Why were the inventory and photographing not done at the crime scene?	The inventory and photographing were conducted at the PDEA station due to concerns about potential commotion or reprisal at the crime scene, as the accused was a known notorious person, and the necessary equipment was readily available at the station.
Is dusting the buy-bust money with ultraviolet powder required?	No, dusting the buy-bust money with ultraviolet powder is not a mandatory requirement for a valid buy-bust operation; it is merely a tool for identification, and the prosecution can still prove the transaction through other evidence.
Why was the informant not presented as a witness?	The informant was not presented as a witness due to security reasons and because their testimony was deemed corroborative, as the poseur-buyer, PO2 Velasquez, directly testified about the illegal sale.
What was the outcome of the case?	The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ decision, finding Jalil Lamama guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs and sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00.

This case underscores the critical balance between procedural adherence and the pursuit of justice in drug-related offenses. While strict compliance with protocols is ideal, the Supreme Court recognizes that justifiable deviations can occur, provided the integrity of the evidence remains uncompromised. This ruling serves as a reminder to law enforcement to prioritize the preservation of evidence and the establishment of an unbroken chain of custody, ensuring the successful prosecution of drug offenders.

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. Lamama, G.R. No. 188313, August 23, 2017