People v. Holgado

G.R. No. 207992               August 11, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-appellee, 
vs.
ROBERTO HOLGADO Y DELA CRUZ AND ANTONIO MISAREZ Y ZARAGA, Accused-appellants.

Facts:

In December 2006, the Pasig City Police received reports of illegal drug activities of Roberto Holgado (Holgado) along C. Raymundo Street, Pasig City. After surveillance operations, a search warrant was issued against Holgado. Acting on the search warrant, the Pasig City Chief of Police instructed his officers to, if possible, first conduct a buy-bust operation before actually enforcing the search warrant.

In the evening of January 17, 2007, police operatives went to No. 17, C. Raymundo Street for the buy-bust operation. PO1 Philip Aure, acting as poseur-buyer and accompanied by the police informant, approached Holgado who was then part of a drinking session with two (2) companions. Holgado asked the informant if he was buying drugs while at the same time offering him a drink. The informant accepted the drink and introduced PO1 Aure as a drug user. PO1 Aure then handed Holgado two (2) marked one hundred peso bills. Holgado asked PO1 Aure and the informant to wait as the drugs were with his "kumpare" who was then in the restroom.

Holgado called Misarez. After some time, co-accused Antonio Misarez stepped out of the restroomand asked who was buying drugs. PO1 Aure and the informant answered, "Kami." Misarez then handed a plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance to PO1 Aure. PO1 Aure examined the sachet’s contents and took out his cellphone. This was the pre-arranged signal to the other police operatives that the sale of drugs had been consummated.

Following their arrest, Holgado and Misarez were charged with violating Sections 5 (sale of dangerous drugs), 11 (possession of dangerous drugs), and 12 (possession of drug paraphernalia) of Republic Act No. 9165.

Issue:

Whether Holgado’s and Misarez’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for violating Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 was established.

Subsumed in the resolution of this issue is the question of whether the prosecution was able to establish compliance with the requisites of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.

Ruling:

By failing to establish identity of corpus delicti, non-compliance with Section 21 indicates a failure to establish an element of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. It follows that this non-compliance suffices as a ground for acquittal. As this court stated in People v. Lorenzo:

In both illegal sale and illegal possession of prohibited drugs, conviction cannot be sustained if there is a persistent doubt on the identity of the drug. The identity of the prohibited drug must be established with moral certainty. Apart from showing that the elements of possession or sale are present, the fact that the substance illegally possessed and sold in the first place is the same substance offered in court as exhibit must likewise be established with the same degree of certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty verdict.

The prosecution’s sweeping guarantees as to the identity and integrity of seized drugs and drug paraphernalia will not secure a conviction. Not even the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties will suffice. In fact, whatever presumption there is as to the regularity of the manner by which officers took and maintained custody of the seized items is "negated." Republic Act No. 9165 requires compliance with Section 21.