GR No 221465

People of the Philippines vs Rodelio Lopez

GR No 221465         November 16, 2016

Facts:

            Lopez was charged to have committed crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu. The police were able to track Lopez and his illegal activities via a tip from an informant which urged the buy-bust team to be established for the entrapment operations against Lopez. As the said entrapment ensued, Lopez was found to have sold one sachet of shabu and two other sachets in his possession. The said sachets were then ordered transmitted to PDEA through DDB for disposal as per RA 9165.

            The trial court held that the prosecution had established all the required elements for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs through a legitimate buy-bust operation. On appeal, CA affirmed RTC’s findings that all elements of the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs were proven by the prosecution. Defense of denial and alibi were considered weak and cannot prevail the positive declaration of the police.

            Lopez filed a Notice of Appeal.

Issue:

            WON Lopez be held guilty of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs.

Held:

            The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction of Lopez.

        Under Section 5, Article 2 of RA No 9165, the essential elements in the successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of dangerous or prohibited drugs are: 1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and 2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. Material in the successful the prosecution is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in the court of evidence of corpus delicti. In the instant case, Lopez was caught in flagrante delicto of selling shabu, a dangerous drug to the poseur-buyer, there having been a completed sale transaction of the same.

In the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drug, the prosecution must prove the following elements: 1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; 2) such possession is not authorized by law; and 3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. The same was met in the entrapment operations that occurred.

In the prosecution of drug cases, it is of paramount importance that the existence of the drug as the corpus delicti of the crime be established beyond doubt. Hence, IRR of RA No 9165 offer some flexible proviso that non-compliance with the requirements set forth under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and 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.

Thus, although it was found out that the police did not comply with the required physical inventory, what is crucial is that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items be preserved as they will be used in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.