TL;DR

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for illegal drug sale and possession, even though the formal charge (Information) lacked the specific quantity of drugs. The Court clarified that while including the drug quantity is best practice, its absence isn’t fatal to a conviction. This omission only affects the penalty, ensuring it aligns with the lesser weight if not specified in the charge. For individuals facing drug charges, this means a conviction can stand even with such omissions, but it may influence the severity of the sentence imposed.

When Silence on Scales Doesn’t Tip Justice: Upholding Drug Convictions Despite Information Gaps

In People v. Paguinto, the Supreme Court tackled a crucial aspect of drug cases: the necessity of explicitly stating the drug quantity in the formal charge document, known as the Information. Mark Anthony Paguinto was convicted of illegal drug sale and possession. A key point of contention was that the Information for illegal possession did not specify the weight of the seized methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). This case provides an opportunity to understand the nuances of procedural requirements in drug cases and how courts balance form and substance in the pursuit of justice. The central legal question is whether the omission of drug quantity in the Information is a fatal flaw that invalidates a conviction.

The prosecution’s case rested on the testimony of PO2 Agsawa, the poseur-buyer in a buy-bust operation. PO2 Agsawa detailed the transaction, the arrest of Paguinto, and the subsequent seizure of drugs. The evidence included sachets of shabu, which tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Paguinto, in his defense, denied the charges, claiming he was framed. He also argued that the prosecution failed to present the confidential informant and that there was a break in the chain of custody of the seized drugs. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Paguinto guilty, and the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this decision, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court meticulously reviewed the elements of illegal drug sale and possession. For illegal sale, these are: the identities of buyer and seller, the transaction itself, and the corpus delicti, which is the illegal drug. The Court found that PO2 Agsawa’s testimony convincingly established these elements. Regarding the non-presentation of the informant, the Court reiterated that informant testimony is not always mandatory, especially when the poseur-buyer, like PO2 Agsawa, provides a clear account. Informants are often not presented to protect their safety and continued usefulness. Exceptions exist, such as when the accused vehemently denies the sale and there are inconsistencies in police testimony, but none applied here.

For illegal possession, the elements are: possession of a prohibited drug, lack of legal authorization for possession, and free and conscious possession. The prosecution demonstrated that drugs were recovered from Paguinto’s person after a valid arrest, and these tested positive for shabu. Paguinto offered no legal justification for possessing these drugs, establishing prima facie intent to possess. Crucially, the Supreme Court addressed the chain of custody, the process of ensuring the integrity of the seized drugs from confiscation to court presentation. The Court found that the prosecution successfully traced the chain, from marking at the arrest site, inventory in the presence of witnesses (including public officials and media), to laboratory examination and court presentation. Any procedural deviations are permissible if the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs are maintained, according to Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by RA No. 10640.

The Court then addressed the critical issue of the omitted drug quantity in the Information for illegal possession. While acknowledging the omission, the Court stated it was not a fatal error. The quantity of drugs primarily affects the penalty. The Court noted that the weight of the drugs was documented in the request for laboratory examination. Applying the principle of strict construction of penal laws against the State and liberally in favor of the accused, the Court ruled that the penalty should correspond to the lowest possible bracket when the quantity is not alleged in the Information. Since the drugs possessed were less than five grams of shabu, the imposed penalty of imprisonment for illegal possession was within the correct range. Therefore, the Supreme Court upheld the CA’s decision, affirming Paguinto’s conviction for both illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs.

This case underscores that while procedural correctness is important, the substance of the evidence and the integrity of the process are paramount. The omission of drug quantity in the Information, while a defect, did not negate the conviction because the weight was established through evidence and the accused was not prejudiced in his defense. It serves as a reminder for prosecutors to ensure completeness in Informations, while also providing reassurance that minor procedural lapses, if justified and non-prejudicial, will not automatically lead to the dismissal of drug cases.

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: G.R. No. 256242, January 18, 2023, Supreme Court of the Philippines.