In People v. Rolando Carrera, the Supreme Court clarified that even if a drug sale is not completed due to lack of payment, the act of delivering illegal drugs constitutes a crime under Republic Act No. 9165. This ruling reinforces that the mere transfer of possession of dangerous drugs, without legal authority, is punishable, regardless of whether money changes hands. It serves as a stern warning against participating in any stage of drug distribution, emphasizing that the law targets not only sellers but also those who facilitate the movement of illicit substances.

When a Drug Deal Fails: Can Delivery Alone Constitute a Crime?

Rolando Carrera was apprehended during a buy-bust operation for allegedly selling shabu. However, the transaction was incomplete as the poseur-buyer did not pay for the drugs after they were handed over. The lower courts initially convicted Carrera, but the Supreme Court refined the charges. The central legal question was whether Carrera could be held liable for a drug-related offense despite the absence of a completed sale.

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements outlined in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 to maintain the integrity of evidence in drug cases. This section mandates that after the seizure of illegal drugs, the apprehending team must conduct a physical inventory and photograph the items immediately in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official. The law recognizes, however, that strict compliance may not always be possible under field conditions.

The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 provide a crucial caveat. Non-compliance with the prescribed procedures is permissible if justified, provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. This provision acknowledges the practical challenges law enforcement officers face during operations, such as potential threats to their safety or the security of the evidence. The prosecution bears the burden of proving that justifiable grounds existed for any deviation from the standard procedure and that the integrity of the evidence was maintained.

In this case, the buy-bust team conducted the inventory and marking of the seized items not at the place of apprehension but at a barangay hall in Quezon City. IO2 Sandaan, the team leader, justified this decision by citing security concerns. She stated that the appellant had identified himself as a member of a Muslim drug group, and the location of the arrest was near a tricycle terminal, which drew a crowd and posed a risk to the safety of her team, which consisted of only five agents. The Supreme Court agreed that the team’s decision to move the inventory to a safer location was justified under the circumstances.

The Court then addressed the issue of whether the appellant could be convicted of illegal sale of a prohibited drug, considering the absence of payment. To secure a conviction for illegal sale of shabu, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt several elements: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the identity of the object, and the consideration of the sale; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the thing. IO1 Samson, the poseur-buyer, admitted that he did not pay for the drugs after the appellant handed them over. This failure to complete the payment meant that no sale was ever consummated between the parties.

The Supreme Court, citing People v. Maongco and People v. Reyes, clarified that while the appellant could not be convicted of illegal sale, he could be held liable for illegal delivery of dangerous drugs. This offense is defined as the act of passing on possession of a dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, and by any means; such delivery is not authorized by law; and the accused knowingly made the delivery with or without consideration. In this case, the prosecution established that the appellant knowingly passed the shabu to IO1 Samson based on a prior arrangement. As a tricycle driver, the appellant had no legal authority to possess and deliver the drug.

It must be emphasized that appellants were charged with selling, trading, delivering, giving away, dispatching in transit and transporting dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The charge was not limited to selling. Said section punishes not only the sale but also the mere act of delivery of prohibited drugs after the offer to buy by the entrapping officer has been accepted by the seller. In the distribution of prohibited drugs, the payment of any consideration is immaterial. The mere act of distributing the prohibited drugs to others is in itself a punishable offense. x x x^[29]

Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 prescribes a 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) for any person found guilty of illegal delivery of a prohibited drug. Accordingly, the Supreme Court found Rolando Carrera guilty of Illegal Delivery of Prohibited Drugs and sentenced him to life imprisonment and ordered him to pay a fine of Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00). The Court emphasized that the mere act of delivering prohibited drugs is a punishable offense, irrespective of whether consideration (payment) is exchanged.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the accused could be convicted of a drug-related offense when the intended sale was not completed due to non-payment, but the drugs were delivered. The Supreme Court clarified that illegal delivery alone is a punishable offense.
What is required for a conviction of illegal sale of drugs?	To be convicted of illegal sale, the prosecution must prove the identity of the buyer and seller, the object of the sale, the consideration, and the delivery of the drugs with payment. Absence of payment negates the element of sale.
What constitutes illegal delivery of drugs?	Illegal delivery occurs when someone passes on possession of a dangerous drug to another without legal authorization, regardless of whether there is an exchange of money. The person must knowingly make the delivery.
What are the requirements under Section 21 of R.A. 9165?	Section 21 requires the apprehending team to immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized drugs in the presence of the accused, media, DOJ representative, and an elected public official. This aims to ensure transparency and preserve the integrity of the evidence.
Can the inventory be done elsewhere?	Yes, the inventory can be conducted at the nearest police station or office if it is not practicable to do it at the place of seizure, or if there are justifiable grounds such as safety concerns. The prosecution must prove these grounds.
What was the justification for moving the inventory location in this case?	The team leader cited safety concerns because the accused claimed to be part of a drug group, and the area was a crowded tricycle terminal. These were deemed justifiable grounds to move the inventory.
What is the penalty for illegal delivery of drugs under R.A. 9165?	The penalty for illegal delivery is life imprisonment to death, and a fine ranging from P500,000 to P10,000,000. This is the same penalty as for illegal sale.
How does this case affect law enforcement?	This case reinforces that law enforcement can still prosecute individuals for drug-related offenses even if the sale is not completed, as long as delivery is proven. It emphasizes the importance of proper handling of evidence.
What is the significance of the ‘chain of custody’ in drug cases?	The chain of custody ensures that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs are maintained from the moment of seizure to presentation in court. It prevents tampering, alteration, or substitution of the evidence.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Rolando Carrera clarifies the scope of liability under R.A. No. 9165, particularly concerning the delivery of illegal drugs. It serves as a crucial reminder that the law targets all aspects of drug distribution, not just the final sale, and reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards to maintain the integrity of evidence in drug cases. This ruling strengthens the legal framework for combating drug-related offenses in the Philippines.

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. Carrera, G.R. No. 215731, September 02, 2015