G.R. No. 172971; June 16, 2010
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. SITTI DOMADO, Appellant.

FACTS

Appellant Sitti Domado was charged with violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 for the delivery of methamphetamine hydrochloride. The prosecution evidence established that on December 31, 2003, a police entrapment operation was set in Damortis, Sto. Tomas, La Union, based on information from an arrested suspect, Augustus Castro. Appellant, along with Jehan Sarangani and Violeta Fernandez, arrived and boarded a van where Castro was waiting with Police Senior Inspector Reynaldo Lizardo. Upon Castro’s inquiry about the shabu, appellant, seated in front, instructed one of her companions to show the “items.” Jehan then handed an envelope containing three plastic sachets to Castro, who gave them to PSI Lizardo. Lizardo confirmed the contents as shabu, arrested the group, and marked the seized items. The sachets were later chemically confirmed to contain shabu.
The defense presented a different version, claiming appellant was merely asked by a relative to deliver an envelope to Castro without knowledge of its illegal contents. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt and to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution successfully proved appellant’s guilt for the illegal sale and delivery 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 affirmed the conviction. The Court found the prosecution evidence sufficient. Appellant’s direct participation was proven by her instruction to her companion to hand over the envelope containing the drugs to the poseur-buyer, which constituted acts of delivery and sale. The defense of lack of knowledge was rejected, as the sequence of events during the entrapment clearly indicated conspiracy and conscious involvement.
Regarding the chain of custody, the Court held that while the ideal procedure under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was not perfectly followed—noting the absence of an elected public official and a Department of Justice representative during the inventory—this did not automatically invalidate the seizure. The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. PSI Lizardo immediately marked the sachets at the police station after the arrest. The items were then subjected to laboratory examination, where they tested positive for shabu. The prosecution satisfactorily accounted for each link in the chain: from seizure, marking, inventory, to laboratory analysis. Minor deviations from procedure were justified under the prevailing circumstances of the entrapment operation and did not create reasonable doubt as to the identity of the corpus delicti. Thus, appellant’s guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt.