G.R. No. 205202 , June 9, 2014
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Nenita Gamata y Valdez, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

On July 25, 2006, based on information from a confidential asset, a buy-bust team was formed to target Nenita Gamata y Valdez (accused-appellant) and others for illegal drug peddling in Laperal Compound, Makati City. PO2 Renie Aseboque was designated as the poseur-buyer. The operation was coordinated with the PDEA. At the location, the informant identified the accused-appellant. PO2 Aseboque approached her and inquired about “Jun.” The accused-appellant responded, indicating she had shabu for sale. PO2 Aseboque then asked for ₱500.00 worth of shabu. The accused-appellant handed over one plastic sachet, and PO2 Aseboque gave her the marked money. Upon the pre-arranged signal, the team arrested her. A search yielded three more plastic sachets from her pocket, along with the buy-bust money and personal cash. The seized sachets were immediately marked at the scene with “REA” (for the sold item) and “REA-1,” “REA-2,” and “REA-3” (for the recovered items). An Acknowledgment Receipt was prepared and signed by the team. The accused-appellant and the evidence were brought to the police station, and the specimens were submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory. Forensic examination confirmed the sachets contained methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). The accused-appellant was charged with illegal sale (Criminal Case No. 06-1344) and illegal possession (Criminal Case No. 06-1345) under R.A. No. 9165 . The defense claimed she was arbitrarily arrested at her home after a failed search for her brother-in-law and denied any drug transaction. The RTC convicted her for illegal sale but acquitted her for illegal possession. The CA affirmed the conviction. The accused-appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing a broken chain of custody due to alleged inconsistencies in testimonies and non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 regarding inventory and photographing of seized items.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant for illegal sale of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in establishing the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti through an unbroken chain of custody.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the conviction. 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 drugs and payment. The straightforward testimony of PO2 Aseboque, corroborated by other team members, clearly established the transaction. Regarding the chain of custody, the Court ruled that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved. The marking of the sachets with “REA” and its variants was done immediately at the place of arrest, as attested to by the arresting officers and reflected in the Acknowledgment Receipt. The forensic chemist confirmed receiving the specimens with these markings and testing positive for shabu. The Court found no fatal inconsistency in the testimonies concerning who held the items, noting that Pulido recovered the additional sachets while PO2 Aseboque restrained the accused-appellant. While the police did not strictly comply with Section 21’s requirements for inventory and photography in the presence of the specified witnesses, the Court ruled that such non-compliance did not automatically invalidate the seizure. The prosecution provided justifiable grounds—the operation occurred in a high-risk area where the presence of media, DOJ, and public officials might have compromised the team’s safety or integrity. The “saving clause” under the law’s implementing rules applies when the prosecution proves the integrity of the evidence and provides a plausible reason for non-compliance. Here, the core of the chain of custody—immediate marking, proper turnover, and scientific examination—was intact. The defense of denial and frame-up, being unsubstantiated, could not overcome the positive identification by the police officers, who are presumed to have performed their duties regularly. Thus, the accused-appellant’s guilt for violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000.00 was sustained.