Buy-Bust Transaction, How Consummated
When what is involved is a prosecution for illegal sale of regulated or prohibited drugs, conviction can be had if the following elements are present: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti of the crime. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapment officers and the accused. The crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs is committed as soon as the sale transaction is consummated. (People v. Encila, G.R. No. 182419, Feb. 10, 2009)
Proof of Buy-Bust
Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any of the money used in a buy-bust operation, much less is it required that the boodle money be marked or entered in the police blotter. xxx Well-settled is the rule that the testimony of an informant who witnessed the illegal sale of shabu is not essential for conviction and may be dispensed with if the poseur-buyer testified on the same, because the informant’s testimony would merely corroborate that of the poseur-buyer. (People v. Santiago, et.al., G.R. No. 175326, Nov. 28, 2007)
Presentation of Money Used; Buy Bust Operation
In the case of People v. Mala, we held that what is material is the proof that the transaction actually took place, coupled with the presentation before the court of the corpus delicti. It bears emphasizing that neither the law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any of the money used in a buy-bust operation, for the only elements necessary to consummate the crime is proof that the illicit transaction took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the illicit drug as evidence. (People v. Quiaoit, Jr., G.R. No. 175222, July 27, 2007)
Marked Money Not Indispensable, Corroborative in Nature
The failure to present the buy-bust money is not fatal. The marked money used in the buy-bust operation is not indispensable but merely corroborative in nature. In the prosecution for the sale of dangerous drugs, the absence of marked money does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution as long as the sale of dangerous drugs is adequately proven Çnd the drug subject of the transaction is presented before the court. Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any money used in the buy-bust operation. What is material to a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. (Norgie Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 164580, Feb. 6, 2009)
Failure to Record the Boodle Money
The failure of the PDEA operatives to record the boodle money will not render the buy-bust operation illegal. The recording of marked money used in a buy-bust operation is not one of the elements for the prosecution of sale of illegal drugs. The recording or non-recording thereof in an official record will not necessarily lead to an acquittal as long as the sale of the prohibited drug is adequately proven. (People v. Clemente, et.al., G.R. No. 178876, June 27, 2008)
Failure to Present Informant
That the informant was not presented by the prosecution does not prejudice the State’s case as all the elements of illegal sale and possession of shabu by appellant were satisfactorily proved by testimonial, documentary and object evidence. At best, the testimony of the informant would only have been corroborative of the testimonies of PO2 Barrameda and PO2 Igno. It is not indispensable. People v. Uy explains:
The failure to present the informer did not diminish the integrity of the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution. Informers are almost always never presented in court because of the need to preserve their invaluable service to the police. Their testimony or identity may be dispensed with since his or her narration would be merely corroborative, as in this case, when the poseur-buyer himself testified on the sale of the illegal drug. (Underscoring supplied) (People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 172975, August 8, 2007; People v. Botanes, G.R. No. 179150, June 17, 2008; People v. Bohol, G.R. No. 171729, July 28, 2008; People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, July 28, 2008)
Simultaneous Exchange of the Marked Money and Prohibited Drugs Not Necessary
Appellants’ argument that the poseur-buyer was not able to strike a deal or a sale because one of the elements of the crime charged was wanting – payment by the poseur-buyer for the thing sold or receipt of the marked money by the seller of the dangerous drugs – is erroneous. Xxx There is no rule of law which requires that in buy-bust operations there must be a simultaneous exchange of the marked money and the prohibited drug between the poseur-buyer and the pusher.
It must be emphasized that appellants were charged with selling, trading, delivering, giving away, dispatching in transit and transporting dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The charge was not limited to selling. Said section 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. In the distribution of prohibited drugs, the payment of any consideration is immaterial. The mere act of distributing the prohibited drugs to others is in itself a punishable offense. (People v. Clemente, et.al., G.R. No. 178876, June 27, 2008)
Pre-operation Orders and Post Operation Report
The non-presentation of pre-operation orders and post operation report is not fatal to the cause of the prosecution, because they are not indispensable in a buy-bust operation. What determines if there was, indeed, a sale of dangerous drugs is proof of the concurrence of all the elements of the offense; to wit: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor, which the prosecution has satisfactorily established. (People v. Dumlao, G.R. No. 181599, August 20, 2008)
The Chain of Custody Requirement
Board Regulation No. 1, series of 2002 defines chain of custody as “the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.”
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of the exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would thus include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was seized to the time it is offered in court as evidence, such that every person who handled the same would admit how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness’ possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. The same witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. It is from the testimony of every witness sho handled the evidence from which a reliable assurance can be derived that the evidence presented in court is one and the same as that seized from the accused. (People v. Obmiranis, G.R. No. 181492, Dec. 16, 2008; People v. Ruiz Garcia, G.R. No. 173480, Feb. 25, 2009; People v. Cervantes, G.R. No. 181494, March 17, 2009)
Physical inventory and photograph
Requirement under Section 21
vis-à-vis “marking” of seized evidence
While the first sentence of Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 states that “the apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same,” the second sentence makes a distinction between warrantless seizures and seizures by virtue of a warrant, thus:
(a) x x x Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further 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. [Emphasis supplied]
Thus, the venues of the physical inventory and photography of the seized items differ and depend on whether the seizure was made by virtue of a search warrant or through a warrantless seizure such as a buy-bust operation.
In seizures covered by search warrants, the physical inventory and photograph must be conducted in the place where the search warrant was served. On the other hand, in case of warrantless seizures such as a buy-bust operation, the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable; however, nothing prevents the apprehending officer/team from immediately conducting the physical inventory and photography of the items at the place where they were seized, as it is more in keeping with the law’s intent of preserving their integrity and evidentiary value. (People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 175822, October 15, 2008)
Mandatory Drug Testing
Section 36 of R.A. 9165 provides:
SEC. 36 Authorized Drug Testing —Authorized drug testing shall be done by any government forensic laboratories accredited and monitored by the DOH to safeguard the quality of the test results. x x x The drug testing shall employ, among others, two (2) testing methods, the screening test which will determine the positive result as well as the type of drug used and the confirmatory test which will confirm a positive screening test. x x x The following shall be subjected to undergo drug testing:
x x x x
(c) Students of secondary and tertiary schools. —Students of secondary and tertiary schools shall, pursuant to the related rules and regulations as contained in the school’s student handbook and with notice to the parents, undergo a random drug testing x x x;
(d) Officers and employees of public and private offices. —Officers and employees of public and private offices, whether domestic or overseas, shall be subjected to undergo a random drug test as contained in the company’s work rules and regulations, x x x for purposes of reducing the risk in the workplace. Any officer or employee found positive for use of dangerous drugs shall be dealt with administratively which shall be a ground for suspension or termination, subject to the provisions of Article 282 of the Labor Code and pertinent provisions of the Civil Service Law;
x x x x
(f) All persons charged before the prosecutor’s office with a criminal offense having an imposable penalty of imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day shall undergo a mandatory drug test.
(g) All candidates for public office whether appointed or elected both in the national or local government shall undergo a mandatory drug test.
In addition to the above stated penalties in this Section, those found to be positive for dangerous drugs use shall be subject to the provisions of Section 15 of this Act.
