In People v. Diwa, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Magsalin Diwa for illegal sale and possession of marijuana, emphasizing the importance of adhering to proper procedures in drug-related cases. The Court reiterated that factual findings of trial courts, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are accorded great weight, underscoring the necessity of maintaining an unbroken chain of custody for seized drugs to ensure the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence. This ruling highlights the stringent standards the prosecution must meet to secure convictions in drug offenses.

Buy-Bust or Frame-Up? Examining Evidence in Drug Offenses

The case revolves around the conflicting accounts of a buy-bust operation. According to the prosecution, on August 20, 2003, an informant reported Magsalin Diwa’s drug-selling activities to the Caloocan City Police Station. A team was formed, with PO3 Ramon Galvez acting as the poseur-buyer. PO3 Galvez approached Diwa, purchased marijuana using a marked one hundred peso bill, and subsequently arrested him. A yellow plastic bag containing more marijuana was confiscated from Diwa. The seized items were sent to the Crime Laboratory, where P/Insp. Jesse Dela Rosa confirmed the substance to be marijuana.

Diwa, however, presented a different narrative. He claimed he was merely fetching water when SPO1 Moran approached him inquiring about someone named Brenda. He was then taken to the police station, detained, and allegedly asked for ?100,000 for his release. Diwa denied ownership of the marijuana, asserting he only saw it at the prosecutor’s office. He portrayed the incident as a frame-up due to his inability to pay the demanded money.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Diwa guilty beyond reasonable doubt, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Unsatisfied, Diwa appealed to the Supreme Court, primarily arguing that PO3 Galvez and SPO1 Moran failed to follow the procedure for the custody and disposition of the seized marijuana, as outlined in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Diwa claimed the prosecution failed to establish that the seized items were indeed dangerous drugs, suggesting the possibility of evidence tampering due to his lack of funds to bribe the police.

The Supreme Court, however, was unconvinced. The Court emphasized the importance of the trial judge’s ability to observe the demeanor of witnesses, stating that the judge is in a better position to ascertain the truth. The Court highlighted that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The elements of illegal sale are: (1) the accused sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another and (2) knew that what was sold and delivered was a prohibited drug. The elements of illegal possession are (1) the accused is in possession of the object identified as a prohibited or regulatory drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.

Diwa’s defense rested on the presumption of innocence and the argument that the details of the transaction were not clearly shown. However, the Court found PO3 Galvez’s testimony to be credible and clearly establishing the buy-bust transaction. It emphasized that the prosecution’s version of events, detailing the pre-arranged signal, the exchange of money for marijuana, and Diwa’s possession of the drugs, was more believable. The prosecution had unequivocally established the buy-bust transaction, resulting in Diwa’s lawful arrest for illegal sale and illegal possession of marijuana.

The Supreme Court addressed Diwa’s claim of a frame-up, stating that the presumption of regular performance of official duty, along with the arresting officers’ testimony, can only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence demonstrating either improper performance of duty or improper motive. Absent such evidence and given the straightforward testimony of the police officers, the Court found no reason to overturn the lower courts’ findings. The Court found no evidence of improper motive on the part of the police officers.

Diwa also argued that the police operatives did not strictly adhere to Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, questioning whether an inventory was made or photos taken of the seized items. The Court cited the appellate court’s observation that the chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs was duly accounted for and remained unbroken. The Court underscored that compliance with Section 21 is not always mandatory if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The Implementing Rules of Republic Act No. 9165 state:

“…Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items..”

The Court noted that the integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or tampering. Diwa failed to provide sufficient evidence to overcome this presumption, leading the Court to sustain his conviction. Here, the failure to strictly comply with the procedural requirements did not invalidate the seizure and custody of the items because their integrity and evidentiary value were properly preserved.

Regarding the penalties imposed, the Supreme Court affirmed the penalties prescribed under Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165. For illegal sale of marijuana, the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) were correctly imposed. The penalty of death was deleted due to Republic Act No. 9346, which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty. For illegal possession of 288.49 grams of marijuana, the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) were correctly imposed, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the guilt of Magsalin Diwa for illegal sale and possession of marijuana, despite his claims of a frame-up and procedural lapses by the police. The Supreme Court had to determine if the chain of custody of the seized drugs was properly maintained and if the lower courts correctly assessed the credibility of the witnesses.
What is a “buy-bust” operation?	A buy-bust operation is a police tactic where law enforcement officers pose as buyers of illegal substances to catch drug dealers in the act of selling drugs. In this case, PO3 Galvez acted as the poseur-buyer to purchase marijuana from Diwa.
What is Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165?	Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 outlines the procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, and surrendered dangerous drugs. It includes requirements for inventory, photography, and submission to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory.
What does “chain of custody” mean in drug cases?	“Chain of custody” refers to the documented and unbroken transfer of evidence from the time of seizure to its presentation in court. It ensures that the integrity and identity of the evidence are preserved and that there is no tampering or substitution.
What is the significance of the “presumption of regularity” in the performance of official duty?	The “presumption of regularity” means that courts assume law enforcement officers perform their duties properly, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. This presumption can be rebutted if the accused presents convincing evidence of misconduct or improper motive.
What penalties did Diwa face for illegal sale and possession of marijuana?	Diwa faced life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000 for illegal sale of marijuana, and imprisonment of 12 years and one day to 14 years with a fine of P300,000 for illegal possession. These penalties are prescribed under Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165.
What is the Indeterminate Sentence Law?	The Indeterminate Sentence Law allows the court to impose a sentence with a minimum and maximum term, rather than a fixed term. This law is applied in cases where the penalty is not a fixed term, providing the convicted person an opportunity for parole after serving the minimum term.
What was the outcome of Diwa’s appeal?	The Supreme Court dismissed Diwa’s appeal and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals and the RTC, upholding his conviction for illegal sale and possession of marijuana. The Court found that the prosecution had sufficiently proven his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Diwa underscores the necessity of maintaining an unbroken chain of custody for seized drugs and adhering to proper procedures in drug-related cases. It serves as a reminder of the high standards the prosecution must meet to secure convictions in drug offenses. While strict compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 is ideal, the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items is paramount.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.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 OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. MAGSALIN DIWA Y GUTIERREZ, G.R. No. 194253, February 27, 2013