People v. Dasigan

Facts:

At the PDEA office, Melvin Jones Grandstand, Harrison Road, Baguio City, a male confidential informant reported to Police Chief Inspector Luisito Meris that a certain alias "Amy" is engaged in delivering Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, also known as "Shabu" within the vicinity of the La Trinidad Trading Post at Km. 5, La Trinidad, Benguet. A team was tasked to conduct an operation. The team leader, PCI Meris then directed PO2 Corpuz and the confidential informant to conduct surveillance within the vicinity of the La Trinidad Trading Post. The next day, PO2 Corpuz and the informant met Amy at 4AM. Amy said she had something else to do and so she just gave PO2 Corpuz her cell phone number. PO2 Corpuz then went back to their office leaving the confidential informant at the La Trinidad Trading Post. After 2 days, PO2 Corpuz called and said that he was willing to buy 2000 pesos worth of Shabu. Amy delivered the shabu the next day. PO2 Corpuz pressed the white crystals and right away it crumbled into powdery substance and he suspected that the substance was "shabu". Amy then demanded the payment of 2000 pesos. He was ready with the amount but he was instructed that once the "shabu" was given to him, he need not hand the money any longer. Thus, PO2 Corpuz placed the two sachets in his pant[s] pocket and held Amy's right hand and announced "Pulis ako!". Amy was arrested.

RTC found Amy guilty of Secs. 5 and 11(3), Art. II of RA 9165. CA Affirmed the RTC Decision.

                                                 

Issue:

Whether or not the prosecution miserably failed to preserve the integrity of the seized items as well as to establish its unbroken chain of custody, as no photographs were taken by the apprehending officers and the inventory was seriously flawed because it was not conducted immediately after the accused-appellant's arrest and was not shown to have been made in the presence of selected public officials.

Held:

The chain of custody is not established solely by compliance with the prescribed physical inventory and photographing of the seized drugs in the presence of the enumerated persons. As to the fact that the seized items were marked only at the police station and not during the actual apprehension and seizure, in People v. Loks, the Court held that the marking of the seized substance immediately upon arrival at the police station qualified as a compliance with the marking requirement.

For Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the following elements must concur: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it. What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.

In People v. Hong Yeng E and Tsien Tsien Chua, where the marked money was also shown to accused-appellant but it was not actually given to her as she was immediately arrested when the shabu was handed over to the poseur-buyer, the Court held that it is material in illegal sale of dangerous drugs that the sale actually took place, and what consummates the buy-bust transaction is the delivery of the drugs to the poseur-buyer and, in turn, the seller's receipt of the marked money. While the parties may have agreed on the selling price of the shabu and delivery of payment was intended, these do not prove consummated sale. Receipt of the marked money, whether done before delivery of the drugs or after, is required.

In the case at bar, although accused-appellant was shown the consideration before she handed over the subject shabu to the poseur-buyer, such is not sufficient to consummate the sale.