G.R. No. 194253 ; February 27, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MAGSALIN DIWA Y GUTIERREZ, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Magsalin Diwa was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of marijuana under Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution’s evidence established that on August 20, 2003, a buy-bust operation was conducted in Caloocan City. PO3 Ramon Galvez acted as poseur-buyer and purchased one folded newspaper containing marijuana from Diwa using a marked ₱100 bill. Upon the consummation of the sale, the arresting team apprehended Diwa and recovered the buy-bust money. A subsequent search yielded a yellow plastic bag containing more marijuana. The seized items were examined and tested positive for marijuana.
Diwa denied the charges, claiming he was merely waiting for a ride when he was forcibly taken by men who later turned out to be police officers. He alleged he was framed and that no buy-bust operation occurred. The Regional Trial Court convicted Diwa, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Diwa appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the police did not comply with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused for the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimonies of the police officers credible and consistent, detailing a legitimate buy-bust operation. The elements of illegal sale—the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery—were all proven. For illegal possession, the prosecution established Diwa’s possession of the marijuana without legal authority. The Court rejected the defense of frame-up, noting it was uncorroborated and could not prevail over the positive identification by the police.
Regarding the chain of custody, the Court ruled that while the police did not strictly comply with the witness requirements of Section 21 (the presence of a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected official during the inventory), such non-compliance did not automatically invalidate the seizure. The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved. The prosecution showed the seized items were marked immediately at the scene, turned over to the investigating officer, and submitted to the crime laboratory for examination, which confirmed they were marijuana. The Court emphasized that what is essential is the preservation of the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti, which was satisfactorily established in this case. The appeal was denied for lack of merit.