G.R. No. 224894. October 10, 2018.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. WELITO SERAD Y RAVILLES A.K.A. “WACKY”, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

The prosecution’s evidence established that based on a tip from a confidential informant, a buy-bust operation was conducted against accused-appellant Welito Serad. P02 Ayunting, as poseur-buyer, together with the informant, transacted with Serad outside his house. Serad agreed to sell shabu worth P4,500.00, retrieved a plastic sachet from inside, and handed it to the informant. Upon receiving the item, Ayunting gave the marked money and made the pre-arranged signal. Serad, noticing the approaching backup team, fled but was apprehended after a chase. The seized plastic sachet was marked, inventoried, and photographed at the arrest site in the presence of a media representative, a DOJ representative, and a PDEA representative. Forensic examination confirmed the substance to be 0.32 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The defense presented a starkly different narrative. Serad claimed he was near a well when accosted by men inquiring about a certain “Tadong.” He alleged he was beaten, forced to lead them to Tadong’s house, and subsequently framed for drug selling due to a prior grudge held by the arresting officer, SA Dungog, stemming from a 2006 case where Serad was acquitted. He denied any involvement in the sale of dangerous drugs on the date in question.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of accused-appellant for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The core issue in prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is whether the crime was committed and whether the accused is the perpetrator. The Court found the prosecution successfully established all elements: the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery of the drugs and payment. The testimonies of the police officers, who were presumed to have performed their duties regularly, were clear, consistent, and credible, detailing the consummated sale. The defense of frame-up and denial, uncorroborated by clear and convincing evidence, could not prevail over the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses.
Crucially, the Court upheld the integrity of the seized drug, which is central to proving the corpus delicti. The chain of custody was shown to have been preserved. The buy-bust team immediately marked the seized sachet at the scene. The inventory and photography were conducted at the place of arrest in the presence of the required witnesses under Section 21 of R.A. 9165—a representative from the media, the Department of Justice, and any elected public official. While the defense argued the elected official was not present at the arrest site but only later at the office, the Court ruled this did not break the chain. The law allows the inventory to be conducted at the nearest police station or office for justifiable reasons, such as the accused fleeing the scene and being apprehended elsewhere. The integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence were thus safeguarded, warranting the affirmance of the judgment of conviction.