GR 195850; (February, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 195850 , February 16, 2015
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ABOLA BIO y PANAYANGAN, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
On September 8, 2003, based on an asset’s report, a buy-bust team was formed with PO2 Fernando Salonga as the poseur-buyer. The team proceeded to Ramirez St., Brgy. Nova Proper. The asset introduced PO2 Salonga to appellant Abola Bio as a buyer of shabu. Appellant agreed to the sale. PO2 Salonga handed two 100-peso bills to appellant, who in turn gave a plastic sachet. Upon the pre-arranged signal, PO2 Salonga apprehended appellant. Appellant’s wife intervened, allowing him to flee, but PO2 Salonga caught him. A search yielded another plastic sachet. Appellant, the marked buy-bust money, and the two plastic sachets were brought to the police station. The sachet from the sale was marked “FAS” and the one from possession “FAS-1.” They were turned over to the investigator and then to the PNP Crime Laboratory. Examination confirmed both sachets contained 0.15 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). Appellant denied the charges, claiming he was buying charcoal when arrested and that a policeman demanded ₱80,000 for settlement.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for violations of Sections 5 (illegal sale) and 11 (illegal possession) of Article II of R.A. No. 9165 , despite alleged non-compliance with Section 21’s custody requirements and the claim of denial of counsel during investigation.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. All elements of illegal sale and illegal possession were established through the positive testimony of PO2 Salonga, who identified appellant as the seller and the seized items. The chain of custody, while not strictly complying with Section 21 of R.A. 9165 regarding immediate marking, inventory, and photography in the presence of required witnesses, was shown to be intact and unbroken. The links—from seizure, to turnover to the investigator, to the forensic chemist, and finally to the court—were duly proven, preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. Appellant’s defenses of denial and extortion were common and unsubstantiated ploys. His claim of denial of counsel during investigation was raised too late on appeal and does not affect culpability. The penalties imposed by the lower courts were affirmed, with the modification that appellant is not eligible for parole for the illegal sale conviction.