G.R. No. 205227 , April 7, 2014
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Marco P. Alejandro, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Marco P. Alejandro, along with Imelda G. Solema and Jenny V. del Rosario, was charged with illegal sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 . The Information alleged that on July 12, 2006, in Muntinlupa City, they conspired to sell 98.51 grams of shabu. All accused pleaded not guilty. Jenny del Rosario was later acquitted upon demurrer to evidence. The parties stipulated on several points, including the identity of the accused, the court’s jurisdiction, the forensic chemist’s expertise, the existence of requests for laboratory examination and drug tests, and the Chemistry Reports confirming the substance as shabu and the accused positive for methamphetamine.
The prosecution’s version, based on testimonies of SPO1 Cariaso (poseur-buyer), SPO1 Platon, and Police Inspector Apostol, is as follows: A Confidential Informant (CI) informed PDEA about a drug deal with a certain “Aida” (later identified as Imelda Solema) for 100 grams of shabu priced at ₱360,000. A buy-bust team was formed, with SPO1 Cariaso as poseur-buyer and SPO1 Platon as back-up. Marked money was prepared. On July 12, 2006, the team proceeded to the target area. SPO1 Cariaso and the CI met Solema, who introduced Cariaso as the buyer. Solema asked for the money, which Cariaso showed, and she instructed him to wait for appellant. Appellant arrived in a Toyota Vios, entered the Revo, verified the money, retrieved a newspaper-wrapped item from his car, and handed a transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance to Cariaso. Upon receiving the marked money, Cariaso gave the pre-arranged signal. The team arrested appellant, Solema, and del Rosario (the passenger in the Vios). The seized sachet was marked “EXH. A J.A.C. July 12, 2006”. An inventory was conducted at the PDEA office in the presence of a media representative and a barangay councilor. Laboratory examination confirmed the substance was shabu. Urine tests on the accused were also positive for methamphetamine.
The defense claimed no buy-bust occurred. Appellant testified he went to Solema’s house to rent an apartment, gave a ride to del Rosario, and upon arrival, was forcibly grabbed by PDEA agents who took his money and jewelry. He denied selling shabu and knowing SPO1 Cariaso prior to the arrest. Solema corroborated appellant’s story, claiming she was arrested inside her house while cooking, and that the agents planted evidence. Del Rosario testified she was merely waiting in the car with her baby when arrested.
The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant and Solema. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, particularly the identity of the prohibited drug and the integrity of the chain of custody.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The prosecution successfully established all elements of illegal sale of shabu: (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 poseur-buyer and back-up officer were credible, consistent, and constituted an unbroken chain of events leading to appellant’s arrest. The defense of denial and frame-up was weak and unsupported by evidence. Regarding the chain of custody, the Court found it was preserved. The marking of the seized sachet immediately after arrest at the scene, the inventory at the PDEA office in the presence of the required witnesses (a media representative and a barangay official), and the submission for laboratory examination which confirmed the substance as shabu, ensured the integrity of the evidence. The non-presentation of the CI was not fatal, and the police officers were presumed to have regularly performed their duties. The penalties imposed by the lower courts were affirmed.