People of the Philippines vs. Calexto Duque Fundales, Jr.

G.R. No. 184606, September 5, 2012

(Criminal Law, Illegal Drugs, Evidence, Chain of Custody, Republic Act 9165)

FACTS

Appellant was charged and convicted for illegal sale of dangerous drugs (shabu) and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The prosecution said he was arrested by police in an entrapment operation where a policeman acted as poseur-buyer. Appellant's defense was that he was merely at home repairing a washing machine together with his other co-accused when police suddenly barged in and arrested them.

During the trial, the prosecution established the following: (1) identity of the buyer and the seller, (2) object of the transaction which is the five sachets of shabu, and that (3) payment was made in the amount of P500 marked money; but did not anymore present the forensic chemist. The defense argued that the laboratory report has no probative value because the forensic chemist was not presented to authenticate it, hence the corpus delicti was absent.

ISSUES

1.) Must the forensic chemist be presented to authenticate the laboratory report and establish the object of the illegal transaction?

2.) Were the drug items seized from the appellant properly handled by the police strictly according to the rules?

3. Must the police coordinate and report the buy-bust operation with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA)?

4.) What should we believe, the version of the police or that of the appellant?

RULING

1.) No. The laboratory report by an official forensic chemist regarding a recovered prohibited drug enjoys the presumption of regularity in its preparation. (See also Section 44, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court) The report is conclusive in the absence of contrary evidence. The important thing is that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs are properly preserved. Besides, during the trial both the prosecution and the defense agreed not to anymore present the forensic chemist.

2.) It's too late already to raise this issue on appeal. The allegation on improper handling of seized items should have been raised during the trial. Besides, slight infraction or nominal deviations in handling the seized items is not fatal to the conviction of the accused when it was shown that the seized drugs were inventoried and preserved.

3.) No. While the PDEA may be the lead agency in dangerous drugs cases, nothing in the law (RA 9165) suggests that it intends to make PDEA the exclusive agency to enforce it. (Section 86-A, RA 9165)

4.) The police. Their testimony carries a presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions. Also, a police officer's positive and categorical identification of the appellant made in a straightforward narration of the events, absent any ill motive, must be given credence over the appellant's self-serving and unsubstantiated denial.

(You may copy, distribute or modify this case digest in any medium provided you acknowledge barops-philjuris.blogspot.com. Thank you.)