G.R. No. 227313 , November 21, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOSEPH ESPERA Y BANÑANO @ “JOJO”, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

The prosecution’s case established that on September 2, 2010, a buy-bust operation was conducted by PDEA agents in Tuguegarao City based on information that appellant Joseph Espera was selling shabu. Posing as a buyer, IO1 Johnny Sumalag met with appellant, who handed over a heat-sealed plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance in exchange for marked money. Upon consummation of the sale, the arrest team apprehended appellant, recovered the buy-bust money, and marked the seized sachet at the scene with “JAS 09-02-10.” The team then proceeded to the PDEA office where an inventory was conducted in the presence of appellant, barangay officials, media representatives, and a DOJ representative, with photographs taken. The seized item was then forwarded to the crime laboratory, where it tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The defense presented a starkly different version, claiming appellant was merely visiting a house to inquire about construction work when he was suddenly arrested and handcuffed without any drug transaction occurring. He denied any involvement in illegal drugs and asserted the evidence was planted. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 , a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody over the seized drugs.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant’s conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs despite alleged irregularities in the chain of custody of the seized item.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding 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 testimony of the poseur-buyer provided a clear and consistent account of the transaction. The Court also found the chain of custody was sufficiently established. The marking of the seized sachet was done immediately at the place of arrest. The required witnesses under Section 21 of RA 9165—a representative from the media, the Department of Justice, and any elected public official—were present during the inventory and photographing at the PDEA office. The defense’s bare denial and alibi could not overcome the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses. The Court emphasized that minor procedural lapses, such as the absence of the required witnesses at the exact time and place of arrest, do not automatically invalidate the seizure or justify acquittal, provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, as they were in this case through immediate marking and proper subsequent handling. The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) was upheld.