G.R. No. 197925 , November 09, 2015
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. EDWIN DALAWIS Y HIDALGO, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

On November 1, 2004, a police team in Batangas City conducted a buy-bust operation based on information from a confidential asset that accused-appellant Edwin Dalawis was selling shabu. PO2 Aranza marked a P500 bill with his initials. The team, with the asset, proceeded to a Shell Gasoline Station in Brgy. Sta. Clara. The asset approached Dalawis while the police observed from about seven meters away. The asset handed the marked money to Dalawis, who in turn handed over a small plastic sachet suspected to contain shabu. Upon the asset’s pre-arranged signal, the police arrested Dalawis, recovered the marked money from his hand, and the asset turned over the plastic sachet. The police brought Dalawis to the barangay hall and then to the police station. PO2 Aranza marked the seized sachet with his initials and the date. The duty investigator prepared a request for laboratory examination, and the item was delivered to the crime laboratory, where it tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). The Information also alleged two prior drug-related convictions for Dalawis. At trial, Dalawis denied the sale, claiming he was forcibly taken from his house during a commotion involving the arrest of another individual (Fe Abag) and that he was framed up after police overheard his prior drug convictions. The RTC found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine, with a recommendation of no parole for habitual delinquency. The CA affirmed the conviction but deleted the habitual delinquency finding. Dalawis appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of accused-appellant Edwin Dalawis for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs).

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that all elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. The testimonies of the police officers were straightforward, consistent, and credible, detailing the buy-bust operation. The defense of frame-up and denial were weak and unsupported by clear and convincing evidence. The Court ruled that the chain of custody of the seized drug was sufficiently established despite non-compliance with the strict inventory and photographing requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165, as the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence were preserved. The marking of the seized item immediately after confiscation by the apprehending officer, and its subsequent turnover to the investigator and then to the crime laboratory, constituted an unbroken chain. The failure to strictly observe Section 21 does not automatically render the seizure invalid or the item inadmissible. The Court also held that the law on habitual delinquency under the Revised Penal Code is inapplicable as the accused’s prior and present convictions are for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law, not for the specific crimes enumerated in Article 62 of the RPC (serious/less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa, or falsification).