CASE DIGEST: People of the Philippines vs. Rie Ana Agulay

 

People of the Philippines Vs. Rie Ana Agulay y Barroga

G.R. No. 242515. September 19, 2022

 

FACTS:

In two separate Informations, Agulay was charged with illegal sale and illegal use of dangerous drugs, both punished respectively under Sections 5 and 15 of Republic Act No. 9165. Upon arraignment, Agulay pleaded not guilty to both charges.

At about 5:00 p.m. on February 26, 2016, the Officer-in-Charge of the Batac City Police Office briefed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation against a certain "Rie Ana Agulay." PO1 Barroga was tasked to act as the poseur-buyer and given two P500.00 bills to use as buy-bust money. A police asset had facilitated the transaction with Agulay.

After the briefing, several police officers proceeded to a waiting shed along Asuncion Street, Barangay Lacub, Batac, Ilocos Norte, where the transaction was to take place. The asset exchanged text messages with Agulay and said that Agulay was on her way. However, shortly after, Agulay passed by the waiting shed without stopping. Agulay told the asset she did not stop because she saw several persons in a parked vehicle in front of the waiting shed. Thus, she and the asset agreed to meet somewhere else on the same street, near the riverside empanadaan.

PO1 Barroga and the asset then proceeded to the agreed-upon spot to meet Agulay. The asset introduced PO1 Barroga to Agulay, and Agulay took. a plastic sachet of white crystalline powder from her jacket pocket. Upon POI Barroga's inquiry, Agulay said the sachet cost P1,000.00. PO1 Barroga handed Agulay the buy-bust money in exchange for the plastic sachet.

PO1 Barroga then introduced herself as a police officer and raised her left hand to signal to the buy-bust team that the sale had been consummated. Agulay ran, and PO1 Barroga and the other police officers chased her. Suddenly, Agulay sat at the bridge nearby and cried. The police officers approached, and she dropped cash on the ground. She then picked up the money, upon a police officer's instruction.

Upon arrival of Kagawad Calderon and Kagawad Lopez. PO1 Madalipay conducted a body search on Agulay. From this search, PO1 Madalipay recovered the marked money and a cellphone. Thereafter, PO1 Barroga marked the plastic sachet she had purchased from Agulay with her initials. PO1 Barroga also conducted an inventory, completed a Receipt of Properties/ Articles Seized, and had the barangay officials sign the inventory receipt.

The police officers brought Agulay and the seized items to the police station, where a physician examined Agulay. She was then taken to the Ilocos Norte Crime Laboratory. At the laboratory, PO1 Barroga brought the seized items to PO3 Roque for examination. The seized items tested positive for shabu.

Agulay was the sole witness for the defense. She denied the material allegations against her. She testified that Valdez sent her a message asking to meet at the empanadaan for snacks and that while having snacks, two men who claimed to be Valdez’ friends joined them. These 2 men than asked her to accompany them on a walk and that when the approached the bridge the men asked her to pick up 2 P500.00 bills on the ground. As Agulay picked up the money, a lady took pictures of her. Baranggay officials then arrived and photos of her were taken. The barangay officials signed all the documents and after which Agulay was taken to the police station. At the police station, Agulay was shown a  plastic sachet of shabu, which she said was not hers. She was put in jail. She insisted that the buy-bust sale did not happen. She was not questioned regarding her illegal use of shabu.

The RTC found that the prosecution has sufficiently proved that Agulay had illegally sold and used dangerous drugs. The RTC acknowledged that the representatives from the media and the DOJ were absent during the inventory, and the prosecution did not attempt to explain such absence. However, the trial court held that this was not fatal to the prosecution's case, as strict compliance with the requirements under the law is not always possible.

The CA affirmed the Decision of the RTC in toto.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of accused-appellant for violation of Sections 5 and 15 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act

RULING:

The conviction for illegal use of dangerous drugs is affirmed. However, accused-appellant must be acquitted of the charge of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.

For a  successful  prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be shown: "(l) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor." To prove that the sale took place, the following must be established: "( 1) proof that the transaction or sale took place and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence."

Thus, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti, or "the body of crime that will establish that a crime was committed,"40 must be indisputably shown. In cases involving illegal drugs, the corpus delicti is the "confiscated illicit drug itself, the identity of which must be preserved.”

Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640, contains the procedure apprehending teams must follow when seizing dangerous drugs, to ensure that the dangerous drugs submitted in evidence are, in fact, seized from an accused.

The inventory of the seized drugs must be conducted immediately after the seizure, in the presence of insulating witnesses in the form of "an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media" to minimize, if not eliminate, the possibility of planting of evidence.

As the inventory and photographing of the seized items must be done in the presence of certain witnesses immediately after the seizure, the insulating witnesses under Section 21 should already be present and ready to witness the inventory during the seizure of items.

In this case, although elected public officials Kagawad Calderon and Kagawad Lopez were called in, they arrived only after the buy-bust had been conducted. Moreover, no representative from the National Prosecution Service or media witnessed any part of the buy-bust operation. None of the insulating witnesses were nearby during the buy-bust and the apprehension of accused-appellant.

The failure to comply with the requirements of Section 21, combined with the prosecution's failure to establish any justifiable grounds for noncompliance, is enough to negate the integrity of the allegedly seized drugs in this case. Although the RTC excused the apprehending team's noncompliance due to the late hour of the buy-bust, it was incorrect for the court to provide its own justifiable ground. To accommodate lapses in following chain of custody requirements, the justifiable ground must be pleaded and proven as a  fact by the prosecution during trial.

The conviction for illegal use of dangerous drugs, however, is affirmed. To secure such a conviction, the prosecution must establish that two drug tests were conducted on the accused: a screening test and a subsequent confirmatory test. Here, the prosecution established  that the necessary screening and confirmatory tests were conducted, and that shabu was detected in the tests.