G.R. No. 224581 . October 09, 2024.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DIOSDADO REBUTON y MELENDEZ a.k.a. “DADO” and MARILOU REBUTAZO y ENCABO a.k.a. “LOI,” Accused; MARILOU REBUTAZO y ENCABO a.k.a. “LOI,” Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused Diosdado Rebuton and Marilou Rebutazo were charged with violations of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) in three separate Informations for Illegal Sale (Section 5), Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs (Section 11), and Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (Section 12), all allegedly committed on August 11, 2010, in Dumaguete City. The charges stemmed from a buy-bust operation conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) based on confidential information about Rebuton’s illegal drug activities. During the operation, PO3 Ramon Bernard Pedeglorio, as poseur-buyer, gave marked money to Rebuton to buy shabu. Rebuton called Rebutazo, gave her the money, and upon her saying “Tagae na,” handed a heat-sealed plastic sachet of suspected shabu to PO3 Pedeglorio. After the sale, PO3 Pedeglorio was invited inside Rebuton’s house where he saw, on a table, two more sachets of suspected shabu and various drug paraphernalia. The backup team then arrested both accused. An inventory of the seized items was conducted approximately 30 minutes later in the presence of witnesses from the media, the Department of Justice, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, and the barangay. The items were then brought to the crime laboratory, where they tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). The accused denied the charges, claiming they were merely sniffing shabu when police barged in and planted evidence. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found both accused guilty on all charges. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision. Accused-appellant Marilou Rebutazo filed a Motion for Reconsideration and a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration assailing the Supreme Court’s Resolution dated December 13, 2017, which had denied her appeal and affirmed the lower courts’ rulings.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should grant the accused-appellant’s Motions for Reconsideration, primarily challenging her conviction based on alleged non-compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 .

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the Motions for Reconsideration. The Court held that the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody and complied with the substantive requirements of Section 21 of R.A. 9165. The buy-bust team immediately marked the seized items at the scene. The inventory and photography were conducted in the presence of the accused and the required witnesses—representatives from the media, the Department of Justice, and an elected public official—within approximately 30 minutes from the seizure. The seized items were then turned over to the forensic chemist for examination, who confirmed their integrity. The Court found that the procedural deviations were minor and did not cast doubt on the identity and integrity of the seized drugs. The defense of denial and frame-up was deemed weak and unsupported by evidence. Consequently, the guilt of the accused-appellant for violations of Sections 5, 11, and 12 of R.A. 9165 was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court affirmed the penalties imposed by the RTC: for Illegal Sale (Section 5), life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000; for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs (Section 11), an indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and a fine of P400,000; and for Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (Section 12), an indeterminate penalty of 6 months and 1 day to 2 years and a fine of P10,000.