Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=49867:gr-173051-2007&amp;catid=1494&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:36:45+00:00

Document:
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. GERARDO ORTEZA, Appellant.
That on November 19, 2002, at around 9:00 o'clock in the evening, at Tarlac City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally sell, dispense and deliver .063 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, known as Shabu, a dangerous drug, to poseur buyer SPO1 Rodolfo Ramos for P100.00, without being authorized by law.
WHEREFORE, premises above considered finding the guilt of the accused proven beyond reasonable doubt by the Prosecution for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act [No.] 9165, this Court sentences Gerardo Orteza y Orteza to [a] penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Ph[P]500,000.00 to Ph[P]10,000,000.00 cost against the accused.
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing premises, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMEDsave for a modification in the imposed penalty which is now fixed at life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00.
There is merit in the appeal.
The Court believes that the prosecution was not able to establish with certainty all the elements necessary for the conviction of appellant for illegal sale of shabu.
First, there appears nothing in the records showing that police officers complied with the proper procedure in the custody of seized drugs as specified in People v. Lim,29 i.e., any apprehending team having initial control of said drugs and/or paraphernalia should, immediately after seizure or confiscation, have the same physically inventoried and photographed in the presence of the accused, if there be any, and or his representative, who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. The failure of the agents to comply with the requirement raises doubt whether what was submitted for laboratory examination and presented in court was actually recovered from appellant. It negates the presumption that official duties have been regularly performed by the police officers.
In People v. Laxa,30 where the buy-bust team failed to mark the confiscated marijuana immediately after the apprehension of the accused, the Court held that the deviation from the standard procedure in anti-narcotics operations produced doubts as to the origins of the marijuana. Consequently, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the corpus delicti.
The Court made a similar ruling in People v. Kimura,31 where the Narcom operatives failed to place markings on the seized marijuana at the time the accused was arrested and to observe the procedure and take custody of the drug.
More recently, in Zarraga v. People,32 the Court held that the material inconsistencies with regard to when and where the markings on the shabu were made and the lack of inventory on the seized drugs created reasonable doubt as to the identity of the corpus delicti. The Court thus acquitted the accused due to the prosecution's failure to indubitably show the identity of the shabu.
Secondly, the Court observes that the prosecution did not present the poseur-buyer who had personal knowledge of the transaction. In People v. Uy,34 the Court ruled that the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer is fatal only if there is no other eyewitness to the illicit transaction. This doctrine was reiterated in People v. Ambrosio.35 In both cases, however, not only were there other eyewitnesses to the illegal sale, the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer was also satisfactorily explained. In People v. Uy, the police officer who acted as the poseur-buyer at the time of the trial was paralyzed and confined in a hospital due to gunshot wounds. In People v. Ambrosio, the poseur-buyer was working on another buy-bust operation. The Court therein stated that to require her to testify in open court would divulge her identity and expose her to danger considering that there was another buy-bust operation going on.
A - Buy-bust operation, ma'am.
A - I was the back-up, ma'am.
A - We can see then, ma'am.
A - By waving his right hand, ma'am.
Moreover, the testimonies of the two police officers did not include any positive face-to-face identification in open court of appellant as the seller of shabu, an aspect which was crucial to establish appellant's role in the alleged transaction. It is likewise unclear in the Joint Affidavit of Arrest, which was adopted by the two police officers as their direct testimony, whether the two had a clear and close view of the alleged sale of shabu to support the assertion that they were eyewitnesses to it. The affidavit only stated that the back-up men "who were then placed in a strategically [sic] position near the vicinity are watching the on going deal."38 As such, the testimony of the poseur-buyer, in this case Ramos, was pivotal as only he could testify on what had really transpired during the moment of the alleged sale of shabu. His non-presentation in this case was fatal, absent any explanation for his non-appearance and reliable eyewitness who could testify in his place.
Another befuddling point was the non-prosecution of Leng Leng for the same crime. It was testified that both he and appellant participated in the illegal sale but records were silent as to why he was not indicted for the crime especially since the amount of shabu mentioned in the information was the total sum of the shabu found in the two (2) sachets recovered from the scene, one from appellant and the other one from Leng Leng.39 In addition, no proof of conspiracy was adduced to hold appellant liable for the sale of both sachets. In fact, the second sachet was never sold as it was confiscated from Leng Leng after a body search. While Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 prohibits and penalizes the illegal sale of shabu regardless of the amount, the paucity of evidence on these material points engender reasonable doubt on the credibility of the prosecution's theory.
All told, the totality of the evidence presented in the instant case did not support appellant's conviction for violation of Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165, since the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the offense. Accordingly, the presumption of innocence should prevail and the exoneration of appellant declared as a matter of right.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 29 October 2003 of the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac City, Branch 64 in Criminal Case No. 12420 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant GERARDO ORTEZA y ORTEZA is ACQUITTED of the crime charged on the ground of reasonable doubt and ordered immediately RELEASED from custody, unless he is being held for some other lawful cause.
Quisumbing, Chairperson, Carpio, Carpio-Morales, Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur.
1 Otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
5 TSN, 20 May 2003, pp. 2-3; TSN, 25 July 2003, pp. 3-6.
8 TSN, 26 August 2003, pp. 2-5.
9 TSN, 26 September 2003, pp. 2-5.
10 Records, pp. 53-61; Penned by Honorable Martonino R. Marcos.
13 The docket number of the case when first elevated to the Court.
14 G.R. NOS. 147678-87, 7 July 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
15 CA rollo, p. 47.
16 Rollo, pp. 3-9; Penned by Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes with the concurrence of Associate Justices Arturo D. Brion and Mariflor Punzalan Castillo.
22 CA rollo, p. 48.
26 People v. Uy, 392 Phil. 773, 782-783 (2000).
27 People v. Bandang, G.R. No. 151314, 3 June 2004, 430 SCRA 570, 579.
28 People v. Zeng Hua Dian, G.R. No. 145348, 14 June 2004, 432 SCRA 25, 34.
29 435 Phil. 640, 659 (2002), citing the Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 3, Series of 1979, as amended by Resolution No. 2, S. 1990.
30 414 Phil. 156 (2001) .
31 G.R. No. 130805, 27 April 2004, 428 SCRA 51.
32 G.R. No. 162064, 14 March 2006, 484 SCRA 639.
33 TSN, 26 August 2003, p. 4.
34 392 Phil. 773, 786 (2000).
35 G.R. No. 135378, 14 April 2004, 427 SCRA 312, 327.
36 Records, pp. 12, 15, 17, 22, 27, and 32.
37 TSN, 25 July 2003, pp. 6-9. Emphasis supplied.
39 Id. at 3, 41; One sachet contains .035 gram of shabu while the other contains .028 gram of shabu. The Information states that Orteza sold .063 gram of shabu.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.