The Supreme Court clarified the distinction between illegal sale and illegal delivery of dangerous drugs. It ruled that an accused cannot be convicted of illegal sale if no payment was received, even if they delivered the drugs. However, the accused may still be found guilty of illegal delivery and transportation, which are distinct offenses under Republic Act No. 9165. This distinction affects the penalties imposed, emphasizing the importance of proving each element of the crime beyond reasonable doubt.

Unpaid Delivery: Can You Be Guilty of Selling Drugs If You Weren’t Paid?

This case revolves around the arrest of Wilton Alacdis, who was caught delivering 107 kilograms of marijuana as part of a buy-bust operation. Alacdis was initially convicted of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) both found him guilty. He appealed, arguing that he was merely a courier and unaware of the illegal transaction. The Supreme Court then had to determine whether Alacdis could be convicted of illegal sale when he was apprehended before receiving payment for the drugs.

The central issue was whether the elements of illegal sale were sufficiently proven. The Supreme Court emphasized that for a conviction of illegal sale, both delivery of the drugs and receipt of payment must be established. In this case, Alacdis was arrested immediately after opening the box containing the marijuana, before any money changed hands. Because there was no exchange of money for drugs, the element of consideration, which is essential in illegal sales, was missing. Therefore, the Supreme Court determined that the conviction for illegal sale could not stand.

However, the Supreme Court did not absolve Alacdis of all criminal liability. The Court examined the possibility of convicting him for illegal delivery and transportation of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. The law 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… (Emphasis Ours)

The Court defined “delivery” as any act of knowingly passing a dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, and by any means, with or without consideration. The key is that the accused must have knowledge that they are passing on the dangerous drug. The court found that Alacdis knowingly delivered the marijuana to the poseur-buyer, SPO2 Agbayani. This conclusion was based on the testimony of SPO2 Agbayani, which the court found credible. The court said:

Q: When the back door of the taxi was opened, what happened after that?
A: The suspect Welton Alacdis opened it, ma’am.
Q: So what happened when you saw that he opened it?
A: I noticed that several marijuana bricks were contained in the carton, ma’am.
Q: So when you observed that it was marijuana, what happened after that?
A: Upon confirming that it was marijuana bricks, I removed my bull cap from my head as a pre-arranged signal to my back-up team that the operation gave a positive result ma’am.

The court emphasized the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties by police officers. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, their testimonies are given significant weight. The court was unconvinced by Alacdis’s defense that he was merely an innocent courier.

Furthermore, the sheer volume of marijuana, almost 110 kilograms, indicated an intent to deliver and distribute the drugs. The court cited People v. Hoble, where it was established that possession of prohibited drugs, coupled with the fact that the possessor is not a user, indicates an intention to sell, distribute, or deliver the drugs. Here, Alacdis was found with a substantial amount of marijuana, which served as an indication of intent.

The court also addressed the claim that the buy-bust operation was an instigation. It clarified that the police officer’s act of soliciting drugs is a “decoy solicitation,” which is not prohibited. A decoy solicitation is used to gather evidence of ongoing criminal activity and is not the same as inducing someone to commit a crime they would not otherwise commit.

It is no defense to the perpetrator of a crime that facilities for its commission were purposely placed in his way, or that the criminal act was done at the “decoy solicitation” of persons seeking to expose the criminal, or that detectives feigning complicity in the act were present and apparently assisting its commission. Especially is this true in that class of cases where the office is one habitually committed, and the solicitation merely furnishes evidence of a course of conduct.

The chain of custody of the evidence was also deemed unbroken. The drugs were properly marked, inventoried, and subjected to chemical analysis. The prosecution clearly traced the handling of the evidence from the time of seizure to its presentation in court.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court found Alacdis guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal delivery and transportation of marijuana. The court modified the penalty to life imprisonment and a fine of PhP1,000,000, aligning with recent jurisprudence. This case underscores the importance of correctly charging individuals based on the specific elements of the crime committed.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the accused could be convicted of illegal sale of dangerous drugs when he was apprehended before receiving payment, but after delivering the drugs.
What is the difference between illegal sale and illegal delivery?	Illegal sale requires both the delivery of the drugs and the receipt of payment. Illegal delivery, on the other hand, only requires the knowing transfer of drugs to another person, with or without payment.
Why was the accused not guilty of illegal sale?	The accused was not guilty of illegal sale because he was arrested before he could receive payment for the marijuana, thus missing the element of consideration required for the crime of illegal sale.
What crime was the accused ultimately found guilty of?	The accused was found guilty of illegal delivery and transportation of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165.
What is a “decoy solicitation” and is it legal?	A “decoy solicitation” is when a police officer solicits drugs from a suspect as part of a buy-bust operation. It is legal and does not invalidate the buy-bust operation, as it merely provides evidence of ongoing criminal activity.
What is the chain of custody rule?	The chain of custody rule requires that the prosecution properly document and trace the handling of evidence from the time of seizure to its presentation in court, ensuring its integrity and preventing tampering.
What was the significance of the amount of marijuana involved?	The large amount of marijuana (107 kilograms) indicated the accused’s intent to sell, distribute, or deliver the drugs, especially since he was not a user.
What penalty did the accused receive?	The accused received a sentence of life imprisonment and was ordered to pay a fine of PhP1,000,000.

This case provides a clear understanding of the elements required for a conviction of illegal sale versus illegal delivery and transportation of dangerous drugs. It highlights the importance of evidence in proving each element beyond reasonable doubt.

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, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. WILTON ALACDIS Y ANATIL A.K.A. “WELTON”, G.R. No. 220022, June 19, 2017