TL;DR
In this case, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Neil Dejos for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, even though he was initially charged with illegal drug sale. The buy-bust operation intended to catch Dejos selling drugs, but the sale wasn’t completed because he was arrested before receiving payment. Crucially, the Court clarified that even if the illegal sale isn’t proven, evidence of possessing illegal drugs during a failed sale attempt is sufficient for a conviction of illegal drug possession. This ruling underscores that merely having illegal drugs in one’s possession without legal authority is a crime, regardless of whether a sale actually takes place. The prosecution successfully proved Dejos possessed shabu, and the procedural requirements for handling drug evidence (chain of custody) were properly followed, sealing his conviction.
Possession is Nine-Tenths of the Law: When a Drug Bust Leads to Possession Charges
The case of People v. Dejos began with a charge of illegal drug sale, a serious offense under Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Neil Dejos was accused of selling shabu (methamphetamine hydrochloride) during a buy-bust operation. However, the trial court and subsequently the Court of Appeals, while acknowledging the operation, found insufficient evidence to prove the actual sale. Instead, both courts convicted Dejos of the lesser included offense of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. This raises a vital question: When does a failed attempt to sell drugs still constitute a crime, and what are the crucial elements for proving illegal drug possession in such scenarios?
The prosecution’s narrative unfolded as follows: Police operatives conducted a buy-bust operation targeting Dejos. During the operation, Dejos was found to be in possession of seven sachets of shabu. While the intent was to purchase drugs from Dejos, the actual exchange of money for drugsāthe consummation of the saleādid not occur before Dejos’s arrest. After arresting Dejos, police also apprehended May Flor SaraƱa based on a phone call intercepted from Dejos. Importantly, all seized drugs, from both Dejos and SaraƱa, were inventoried and photographed at the NBI office, in the presence of required witnesses, before being sent to the crime laboratory for testing, which confirmed they were indeed shabu.
Dejos, in his defense, denied the charges, claiming he was merely near his girlfriend’s house when police suddenly accosted and arrested him, alleging he was associated with someone who ran away. He maintained he had no drugs in his possession. However, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) gave more weight to the prosecution’s evidence, particularly the testimony of the arresting officer, PO1 Berdejo, who detailed the buy-bust operation and the recovery of shabu from Dejos. The lower courts emphasized that Dejos failed to provide any legal justification for possessing the dangerous drugs.
The Supreme Court, in its resolution, reiterated the essential elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs as defined under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165:
(a) the accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited drug; (b) such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.
Analyzing the facts, the Court found that all elements of illegal possession were present. Dejos was caught in possession of shabu, a prohibited drug. He had no legal authorization to possess it. And his possession was deemed conscious and free, given the circumstances of his apprehension during the buy-bust. The Court highlighted the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, noting the trial court’s advantageous position to observe demeanor and assess truthfulness. This deference to trial court findings is a cornerstone of Philippine jurisprudence, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
The Supreme Court also addressed the discrepancy between the initial charge of illegal sale and the conviction for illegal possession. Citing previous cases like People v. Dasigan and People v. Hong Yeng E, the Court clarified that for illegal sale to be consummated, there must be both delivery of drugs to the buyer and receipt of payment by the seller. In Dejosās case, while there was intent to sell, the transaction was interrupted before payment was made. Therefore, the Court concluded that the crime of illegal sale was not proven. However, the evidence undeniably showed illegal possession, which is considered a lesser included offense in illegal sale cases. This principle means that the act of selling illegal drugs inherently includes the act of possessing them.
A critical aspect of drug cases is the chain of custody rule, designed to ensure the integrity and identity of the seized drugs as evidence. Section 21 of RA 9165 mandates specific procedures for handling seized drugs, including immediate marking, inventory, and photography in the presence of the accused and certain witnesses (media, DOJ, and elected public official). While the inventory and photography in Dejos’s case were not done immediately at the place of arrest due to safety concerns, the Court found that conducting these steps at the NBI office, shortly after and in the presence of required witnesses and Dejos himself, constituted substantial compliance. The Court emphasized that the prosecution meticulously traced the custody of the drugs from seizure to presentation in court, thereby preserving the chain of custody and the evidentiary value of the shabu.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ rulings, finding no reason to overturn the factual findings or legal conclusions. Dejos’s defense of denial and frame-up was deemed weak and uncorroborated against the strong evidence presented by the prosecution, which benefited from the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by police officers. The Court affirmed the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P400,000.00, consistent with the law for possessing 31.75 grams of shabu.
FAQs
| What was the main charge against Neil Dejos initially? | He was initially charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. |
| What was he ultimately convicted of? | He was convicted of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165. |
| Why was he convicted of possession and not sale? | The sale was not consummated as the payment was not made before his arrest, but he was found in possession of illegal drugs. |
| What is the chain of custody rule? | It is a legal requirement to document and track the handling of seized drugs from the point of seizure to court presentation to ensure evidence integrity. |
| Was the chain of custody properly followed in this case? | Yes, the Supreme Court found substantial compliance with the chain of custody rule, despite the inventory and photography being conducted at the NBI office instead of the arrest site. |
| What was the penalty imposed on Dejos? | He was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of P400,000.00. |
| What does this case tell us about drug offenses in the Philippines? | It highlights that both selling and possessing illegal drugs are serious offenses, and even failed sale attempts can lead to convictions for possession if drugs are found on the accused. It also underscores the importance of proper evidence handling in drug cases. |
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. Dejos, G.R. No. 237423, October 12, 2020
Leave a Reply