In People v. Reyes, the Supreme Court clarified the distinction between illegal sale and illegal delivery of dangerous drugs under Republic Act No. 9165. While the accused was charged with illegal sale, the Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the element of consideration or payment. However, the Court convicted the accused of illegal delivery of shabu, emphasizing that the Information filed against him was not confined solely to the sale, but also included delivery.

The Case of Unpaid Shabu: When Delivery Doesn’t Equal a Sale

The case revolves around Alfredo Reyes y Santos, who was initially found guilty by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, also known as “The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.” This stemmed from an incident where Reyes allegedly sold two sachets of shabu to a poseur-buyer during a buy-bust operation. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision. However, the Supreme Court (SC) took a different view, leading to a crucial legal distinction: What happens when there’s delivery of illegal drugs, but no actual sale? This question forms the crux of the case, forcing the SC to dissect the elements of illegal sale versus illegal delivery under Philippine law.

The prosecution’s case hinged on the testimony of SPO1 Acosta, the poseur-buyer, who recounted the details of the buy-bust operation. According to Acosta, a confidential informant led him to Reyes, who then handed over two plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance, later identified as shabu. However, during cross-examination, SPO1 Acosta admitted that no payment was made for the drugs. He stated that upon seeing and confirming the shabu, he immediately signaled the arrest and that there was no need for him to get the money.

This admission proved fatal to the charge of illegal sale. The Supreme Court emphasized that for illegal sale to be proven, all elements must be established beyond reasonable doubt. These elements are: the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. Citing People v. Del Rosario, the Court reiterated,

“The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction.”

Because there was no evidence of payment, the element of consideration was missing, thus negating the charge of illegal sale.

However, the Court did not exonerate Reyes. The SC looked at the wording of the Information, which stated that Reyes did “wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously sell and deliver” the shabu. This meant that the charge was not limited to illegal sale alone. The Court then examined Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, which punishes not only the sale but also the delivery of dangerous drugs. The law clearly states:

Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. – The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any such transaction.

The Court then turned to the definition of “deliver” under Article I, Section 3(k) of R.A. 9165, which means “any act of knowingly passing a dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, and by any means, with or without consideration.” The elements of illegal delivery are: (1) the accused passed on possession of a dangerous drug to another; (2) such delivery is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused knowingly made the delivery with or without consideration. The case of People v. Maongco highlights this point.

Applying these elements to the facts, the Court found that Reyes did indeed commit illegal delivery. He met with SPO1 Acosta, handed over the shabu, and had no legal authority to do so. The delivery was also made knowingly and voluntarily. The prosecution successfully proved all the elements of illegal delivery beyond reasonable doubt.

Reyes also argued that the police officers failed to comply with the chain of custody rule, particularly Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9165. This rule requires the apprehending team to immediately inventory and photograph the seized drugs in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official. However, the Court noted that the Certificate of Inventory was prepared and signed by the DOJ representative, and the failure to include the signatures of the other individuals did not affect the evidentiary weight of the shabu. The Court emphasized that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved, making strict compliance with the implementing rules unnecessary.

Furthermore, the defense raised the absence of marked money, the lack of counsel during arrest, and the alleged delay in filing charges. The Supreme Court dismissed these arguments. The presentation of marked money is irrelevant in illegal delivery cases since consideration is not an element. The Court also held that the positive testimony of SPO1 Acosta regarding Reyes’ constitutional rights prevailed over Reyes’ self-serving claims. The Court clarified that even if there was a failure to provide counsel, it would only render inadmissible any extrajudicial confession, which was not the case here.

Regarding the delay, the Court noted that the police officers had 36 hours to bring Reyes to the proper judicial authorities, and SPO1 Acosta testified that Reyes was detained for only more than 24 hours. Even if there was a delay, it would not affect the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties, absent any criminal charges against the officers.

In sum, the Supreme Court found Reyes guilty of illegal delivery of shabu, underscoring the importance of the element of consideration in illegal sale cases and clarifying that the charge of delivery can stand independently. The decision highlights that even without a successful sale, the act of knowingly transferring dangerous drugs can still result in a conviction under R.A. 9165. The Court upheld the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the police officers, further solidifying the prosecution’s case.

FAQs

What is the main difference between illegal sale and illegal delivery of drugs?	Illegal sale requires consideration or payment, while illegal delivery does not. Delivery is simply the act of knowingly passing a dangerous drug to another, regardless of whether money or something else is exchanged.
What are the elements needed to prove illegal delivery?	The prosecution must prove that the accused passed on possession of a dangerous drug, that this delivery was unauthorized, and that the accused knowingly made the delivery, with or without any form of payment.
Why was the accused not convicted of illegal sale in this case?	The prosecution failed to prove that the accused received any payment for the shabu. Since consideration is a necessary element of illegal sale, the charge could not stand.
What is the chain of custody rule, and how does it apply in drug cases?	The chain of custody rule ensures the integrity and evidentiary value of seized drugs. It requires documentation of the handling and transfer of the drugs from the moment of seizure to presentation in court.
What is the effect of non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165’s Implementing Rules?	Non-compliance does not automatically invalidate the seizure and custody of the drugs if there are justifiable grounds and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.
What is the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties?	This legal principle assumes that law enforcement officers act in accordance with the law and established procedures. This presumption can be overturned by sufficient evidence to the contrary.
Is presenting marked money essential in drug cases?	It is crucial in illegal sale cases to prove the element of consideration. However, marked money is not essential in illegal delivery cases because consideration or payment is not required.
What is the penalty for illegal delivery of dangerous drugs under R.A. 9165?	The penalty is life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10 million. However, R.A. 9346 prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, limiting the penalty to life imprisonment and a fine.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Reyes clarifies the nuances between illegal sale and illegal delivery under R.A. 9165. It underscores the necessity of proving all elements of a crime beyond reasonable doubt and highlights that even in the absence of a sale, the act of delivering dangerous drugs remains punishable. This ruling serves as a reminder for law enforcement to meticulously document all aspects of drug operations and for legal practitioners to carefully analyze the facts to determine the appropriate charges and defenses.

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 v. Reyes, G.R. No. 194606, February 18, 2015