G.R. No. 177741; August 27, 2009
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. WILLIE RIVERA, Appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution’s evidence established that on March 13, 2003, a buy-bust operation was conducted in Pasig City based on information that a certain “Kirat” was selling drugs. PO3 Amilassan Salisa acted as the poseur-buyer and was provided with two marked ₱100 bills. At the target area, an informant identified appellant Willie Rivera as “Kirat.” PO3 Salisa approached appellant, who was introduced as a buyer of shabu worth ₱200. Appellant accepted the marked money and handed over two plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance. PO3 Salisa then gave the pre-arranged signal, leading to appellant’s arrest. The seized items were marked and later confirmed by forensic examination to contain methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
Appellant denied the charges, claiming he was framed. He testified that he was merely walking when police officers accosted him, dragged him into a van, and attempted to extort money. He alleged the officers were looking for certain individuals he did not know. His defense of frame-up was supported by the testimony of a neighbor who witnessed his arrest.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved appellant’s guilt for illegal sale of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of his claims of illegal arrest and alleged non-compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. On the claim of illegal arrest, the Court ruled that a buy-bust operation is a valid form of entrapment, and appellant’s arrest was lawful as it was effected after he had committed a crime in the presence of the poseur-buyer. The defense of frame-up was rejected for being unsubstantiated and inherently weak, especially when weighed against the clear and consistent testimony of the police officers involved in the operation.
Regarding the chain of custody, the Court held that while the inventory of the seized drugs was not conducted immediately at the place of arrest, the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence were preserved. The marking of the items was done at the scene by the arresting officer, and the forensic chemist confirmed the unbroken chain from receipt to examination. The procedural lapse under Section 21 of R.A. 9165 did not constitute a fatal flaw because the prosecution satisfactorily established an unbroken chain of custody. The prosecution thus proved all elements of the illegal sale of dangerous drugs: the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, the consideration, and the delivery. The conviction was upheld, and the penalties of life imprisonment and a ₱500,000 fine were affirmed.