TL;DR

In drug cases, especially those arising from buy-bust operations, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that illegal drugs were sold and that the evidence presented in court is the same substance seized from the accused. This case affirms that even without presenting the confidential informant, a conviction for illegal drug sale is valid if the police officer who witnessed the transaction testifies credibly. Crucially, the prosecution must also meticulously document and maintain the chain of custody of the seized drugs, from confiscation to laboratory examination and court presentation, to guarantee the integrity and evidentiary value of the drug evidence. Failure to maintain this chain can lead to reasonable doubt and acquittal.

Witness at a Distance: Proving Drug Sale Beyond Doubt

Can a drug conviction stand solely on the testimony of a police officer who observed a drug transaction from a distance, without presenting the poseur-buyer informant? This is the crux of the appeal in People v. Jojo Ejan. Accused-appellant Jojo Ejan challenged his conviction for selling shabu, arguing that the prosecution’s case was weak because the informant was not presented in court and the observing officer was too far to clearly witness the alleged transaction. The Supreme Court, however, upheld the lower courts’ decisions, emphasizing the credibility of the police officer’s testimony and the established chain of custody of the drug evidence.

The case originated from a buy-bust operation conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) in Dumaguete City. Acting on a tip, law enforcement agents planned an operation where a confidential informant would act as a poseur-buyer to purchase shabu from the appellant. Police Officer 1 (SPO1) Germodo testified that he witnessed the informant approach the appellant, hand over marked money, and receive a sachet in return, all from a distance of approximately five meters. Following the transaction, the appellant was arrested, and the sachet was seized, marked, inventoried, and eventually tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.

Ejan’s defense rested on denial, claiming he was merely sniffing rugby nearby when police arrived and falsely implicated him. He questioned the reliability of SPO1 Germodo’s observation from a distance and the absence of the informant as a witness. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) both found Ejan guilty, giving weight to the prosecution’s evidence and the positive identification by SPO1 Germodo. The Supreme Court agreed, reiterating the essential elements for proving illegal drug sale:

“(1) [the] identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. x x x What is material in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti x x x.”

The Court highlighted SPO1 Germodo’s detailed testimony, finding him to be a credible witness. The distance of five meters was deemed reasonable for observation, and the Court deferred to the lower courts’ assessment of witness credibility, a well-established principle in Philippine jurisprudence. The Court underscored that the informant’s testimony is not indispensable for conviction, as it would be merely corroborative. More importantly, informants are often not presented to protect their safety and continued service in anti-drug operations.

A critical aspect of drug cases is the chain of custody, ensuring that the seized drug presented in court is the same one confiscated from the accused. Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, outlines the procedure for handling seized drugs. In this case, the Court found that the police officers properly complied with these procedures. SPO1 Germodo marked the seized sachet at the scene, conducted an inventory in the presence of the appellant and mandatory witnesses (representatives from the Department of Justice, media, and a barangay official), and photographed the process. The seized item was then promptly submitted to the crime laboratory for examination, where it tested positive for shabu. The Court affirmed that:

Plainly, the prosecution has established the crucial link in the chain of custody of the sold sachet of shabu, from the time they were first bought from the accused, until they were brought for examination. This court thus finds the integrity and the evidentiary value of the dangerous drug coming from the accused to have not been compromised.

The defense’s challenge to the chain of custody was therefore rejected. The Supreme Court concluded that all elements of illegal drug sale were proven beyond reasonable doubt, supported by credible witness testimony and a properly maintained chain of custody. The conviction was affirmed, reinforcing the importance of meticulous adherence to procedural safeguards in drug cases to ensure both justice and the integrity of evidence.

FAQs

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People v. Ejan, G.R. No. 212169, December 13, 2017