People v. Ocfemia

PEOPLE vs.
OCFEMIA [706 SCRA 312, 2013]

Criminal Law
DOCTRINE: What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction
or sale actually occurred, coupled with the presentation in court of the substance seized as evidence. The failure of the
police officers to make a physical inventory, to photograph, and to mark the shabu at the place of arrest do not
automatically render it inadmissible in evidence or impair the integrity of the chain of its custody. What is of utmost
importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as these would be utilized
in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. The testimonies of police officers, who caught accusedappellant in flagrante delicto, are usually credited with more weight and credence, in the absence of evidence that
they have been inspired by an improper or ill motive, as compared to the accuseds defenses of denial and frame-up,
which have been invariably viewed with disfavor for the same can easily be concocted.
FACTS: A team of police conducted a buy-bust operation against Ocfemia in the latters residence in San Rafael,
Albay based on a tip from a confidential informant. The informant called out to Ocfemia who came out of his house.
and introduced PO2 Aldea as a buyer of shabu. PO2 Aldea handed the five marked P100.00 bills to Ocfemia and the
latter went inside his house and came back a few minutes later to hand a heat-sealed small plastic sachet of shabu to
PO2 Aldea. After examining the purchased item, PO2 Aldea took off his cap from his head, the pre-arranged signal for
the rest of the team that the transaction had been consummated. PO3 Zamora and the other team members rushed to
the scene, apprised Ocfemia of his constitutional rights, and apprehended him. Thereafter, he was brought to the
police station. At the police station, PO2 Aldea marked with his initials the sachet of shabu sold to him by accusedappellant. PO2 Aldea then submitted the said sachet of shabu to their crime laboratory, together with PS/INSP
Vargass letter- request for chemical analysis of the same. P/SUPT Arroyo conducted the chemical examination of the
submitted specimen which tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
ISSUE:
1.
2.
Whether or not the corpus delicti was established beyond reasonable doubt - YES
Whether or not court erred in not giving credence to the defense that there was no buy-bust operation
that took place in Guinobatan, Albay, on February 21, 2003, but instead, Ocfemia was used a[s] poseurbuyer in a buy-bust operation in Iriga City on the same date. - NO
1.
The chain of custody of the sachet of shabu sold by Ocfemia can be continuously traced
from its receipt by P02 Aldea until its presentation as evidence in court.
HELD:
In the prosecution for the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the following elements must concur: (1) the
identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment
thereof. What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale
actually occurred, coupled with the presentation in court of the substance seized as evidence.
All essential elements were established in this case. First, it was sufficiently shown that the PDEA and the PNP-CIDG
jointly conducted a legitimate buy- bust operation against Ocfemia on February 21, 2003. Second, the very same
sachet of shabu sold by Ocfemia to PO2 Aldea was presented as evidence by the prosecution during trial.
The SC cited People v. Resurreccion: Jurisprudence tells us that the failure to immediately mark seized drugs will not
automatically impair the integrity of chain of custody. The failure to strictly comply with Sec. 21(1), Art. II of RA 9165
does not necessarily render an accuseds arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. What
is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as these
would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
PO2 Aldea himself marked the said sachet of shabu with his initials upon arriving at the police station with Ocfemia.
He also personally submitted the same sachet of shabu to the PNP crime laboratory for forensic examination. When
he testified before the RTC, PO2 Aldea identified the sachet of shabu and confirmed his initials thereon. P/SUPT
Arroyo was the forensic officer who conducted the chemical examination of the contents of the sachet bearing PO2
Aldeas initials and she confirmed on the witness stand that the said contents tested positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride.
2.
In order to prosper, the defenses of denial and frame-up must be proved with strong and
convincing evidence, which Ocfemia failed to produce in this case
Ocfemiss defense of frame-up cannot prevail over the prosecution witnesses positive testimonies on the conduct of a
legitimate buy-bust operation against him, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti. The
testimonies of police officers, who caught accusedappellant in flagrante delicto, are usually credited with more
weight and credence, in the absence of evidence that they have been inspired by an improper or ill motive, as
compared to the Ocfemias defenses of denial and frame-up, which have been invariably viewed with disfavor for the
same can easily be concocted.
Ocfemias assertion that all evidence to exculpate him is in the custody of the police is only too convenient and fails to
convince the Court to waive away the requisite burden of evidence. There is absolute lack of reason or motive for the
police, and even Judge Bagagan, to turn against Ocfemia, an alleged police informant/asset, and launch a concerted
and elaborate plan to put Ocfemia in jail.

People v. Ocfemia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Ocfemia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Ocfemia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE vs.

OCFEMIA [706 SCRA 312, 2013]

You might also like