In People v. Tumulak, the Supreme Court clarified the distinction between illegal sale and attempted sale of dangerous drugs, emphasizing the importance of delivery in consummating the crime. The Court modified the Court of Appeals’ decision, convicting Minnie Tumulak of attempted sale rather than illegal sale because the actual delivery of all the drugs did not occur. This ruling highlights that mere intent to sell, without completing the transaction by delivering the drugs, constitutes only an attempted sale, which carries a different penalty. This distinction is critical in drug-related cases and impacts the severity of the charges and potential penalties for those accused of drug offenses.

When a Deal Turns Sour: Distinguishing Intent from Completion in Drug Sales

The case of People of the Philippines vs. Minnie Tumulak y Cuenca arose from a buy-bust operation conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). Following a tip, NBI agents set up a sting operation to purchase thirty ecstasy tablets from Minnie Tumulak, also known as Mitch. During the operation, Mitch showed a sample tablet to the poseur-buyer but was arrested before she could deliver the remaining tablets. The central legal question was whether Mitch’s actions constituted a completed sale of dangerous drugs, or merely an attempt to sell.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially found Mitch guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, concluding that the prosecution successfully proved the transaction and the confiscated drugs’ identity. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this decision, stating that Mitch’s actions were tantamount to delivery, even though the full transaction was not completed. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing the importance of actual delivery in consummating the crime of illegal sale.

The Supreme Court referenced established jurisprudence to clarify the elements necessary to prove illegal sale of dangerous drugs. To establish illegal sale, the prosecution must prove: (1) that the transaction took place; and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti, or the illicit drug, as evidence. Furthermore, proving the transaction involves demonstrating: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. The Court underscored that the offense of illegal sale requires the consummation of the selling transaction, which occurs when the buyer receives the drug from the seller.

The commission of the offense of illegal sale of prohibited drugs requires merely the consummation of the selling transaction which happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller.

The Court pointed out that Mitch did not deliver all thirty ecstasy tablets to SI Oliveros; they were confiscated during her arrest. The testimony of SI Oliveros revealed that Mitch only showed a sample tablet and demanded payment before delivering the remaining tablets. Because the full delivery did not occur, the Court found that the element of delivery was missing, thus negating the completion of the sale. This led to the crucial determination that Mitch could not be convicted of illegal sale, but instead, of attempted sale.

Building on this principle, the Supreme Court analyzed whether Mitch’s actions constituted an attempted sale. Drawing from the Rules of Court, the Court explained that under the rule on variance, Mitch could be convicted of attempted sale because it is necessarily included in the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The Revised Penal Code defines an attempted crime as one where the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, but does not perform all the acts of execution due to some cause or accident other than their own spontaneous desistance.

A crime is attempted when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution, which should produce the felony, by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.

The Supreme Court found that Mitch’s actions met the criteria for attempted sale. By showing a sample of the ecstasy tablet and demanding payment, Mitch overtly manifested her intention to sell the drugs. The only reason the sale was not completed was because of the intervention of law enforcement. The Court found no evidence that Mitch spontaneously desisted from completing the transaction; her arrest was the intervening factor.

The Supreme Court also addressed the issue of the chain of custody of the confiscated drugs. Mitch argued that the prosecution failed to establish the integrity and identity of the seized drugs because the buy-bust team did not strictly comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, which outlines procedures for handling drug evidence. This section mandates that seized drugs be marked, inventoried, and photographed in the presence of the accused and certain public officials.

The Court acknowledged that strict compliance with Section 21 is crucial to ensure the integrity of the evidence. However, it also recognized that minor deviations from the prescribed procedure do not automatically render the evidence inadmissible, provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. The Court emphasized that the chain of custody requirement aims to remove doubts concerning the identity of the drug, which is the corpus delicti of the crime.

We demand that proof beyond reasonable doubt is observed in establishing the corpus delicti – the body of the crime whose core is the confiscated illicit drug.

In Mitch’s case, the Court found that the failure to immediately mark the confiscated items at the place of arrest did not render them inadmissible. The marking at the nearest NBI office was deemed sufficient, especially considering the impracticality of marking items inside a public restaurant. The Court also noted that the forensic analyst certified that the specimens tested positive for methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), commonly known as ecstasy, and that the drugs presented in court were the same items confiscated from Mitch.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court modified the Court of Appeals’ decision, finding Mitch guilty beyond reasonable doubt of attempted sale of dangerous drugs. This decision underscores the crucial distinction between a completed sale and an attempted sale in drug-related cases. It also reinforces the importance of preserving the chain of custody of drug evidence, while acknowledging that minor deviations from strict procedural requirements do not necessarily invalidate the evidence, provided that the integrity and evidentiary value are maintained.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the actions of Minnie Tumulak constituted a completed illegal sale of dangerous drugs, or merely an attempted sale, based on the evidence presented. The court focused on whether the element of delivery had been satisfied to complete the sale.
What is the difference between illegal sale and attempted sale of dangerous drugs?	Illegal sale requires the consummation of the selling transaction, meaning the buyer receives the drug from the seller. Attempted sale occurs when the offender commences the commission of the crime by overt acts but does not complete all acts of execution due to some cause other than their own spontaneous desistance.
Why was Minnie Tumulak convicted of attempted sale instead of illegal sale?	Minnie Tumulak was convicted of attempted sale because she did not complete the delivery of all the ecstasy tablets to the poseur-buyer. She was arrested before she could hand over the remaining tablets, so the element of delivery, essential for a completed sale, was missing.
What is the significance of the "corpus delicti" in drug cases?	The "corpus delicti" refers to the body of the crime, which in drug cases is the illicit drug itself. Establishing the identity and integrity of the confiscated drug is crucial to prove the commission of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
What is the chain of custody rule in drug cases?	The chain of custody rule refers to the process of documenting and tracking the handling of evidence, particularly drugs, from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court. This ensures the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence and prevents tampering or substitution.
What happens if there are lapses in the chain of custody?	Lapses in the chain of custody can cast doubt on the integrity of the evidence. However, not all lapses render the evidence inadmissible, especially if the prosecution can demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved.
What is the penalty for attempted sale of dangerous drugs?	In this case, Minnie Tumulak was sentenced to life imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of P500,000.00 for attempted sale of 7.4448 grams of methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) or ecstasy, punished under Section 26, in relation to Section 5, of R.A. No. 9165.
How does the Supreme Court’s decision impact future drug cases?	The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the importance of distinguishing between completed and attempted sales in drug cases. It clarifies the elements required to prove each offense and provides guidance on evaluating the chain of custody of drug evidence.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Tumulak provides essential clarity on the distinctions between illegal sale and attempted sale of dangerous drugs. By emphasizing the necessity of delivery for a completed sale, the Court has set a clear precedent for future drug-related cases. This ruling underscores the importance of meticulous evidence gathering and adherence to procedural requirements in drug enforcement to ensure just outcomes.

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. Minnie Tumulak y Cuenca, G.R. No. 206054, July 25, 2016