GR 178876; (June, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 178876; June 27, 2008
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALFREDO CONCEPCION y CLEMENTE and HENRY CONCEPCION y CLEMENTE, accused-appellants.
FACTS
Accused-appellants Alfredo and Henry Concepcion, along with Hegino dela Cruz, were charged with violating Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for the sale and delivery of shabu. The prosecution’s case stemmed from a buy-bust operation on November 27, 2002, in Sta. Maria, Bulacan. A confidential informant arranged a deal with alias “Totoy” (Alfredo Concepcion) for ten grams of shabu. PO2 Peter Sistemio acted as the poseur-buyer. At the location, appellants arrived in a van. Alfredo handed two plastic sachets to PO2 Sistemio, after which the officer gave the pre-arranged signal, leading to their arrest. A third sachet was recovered from the van’s glove compartment. Forensic examination confirmed the sachets contained methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
The defense presented a different version, claiming they were arrested at Alfredo’s house without a buy-bust operation taking place. They alleged the PDEA operatives entered their home, arrested them, and then planted the evidence. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellants, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the guilt of accused-appellants for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the prosecution successfully established all elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. PO2 Sistemio’s credible testimony detailed the transaction where Alfredo directly sold the shabu, with Henry’s participation evident from his remark about the price and quality. The defense of frame-up was rejected for being unsubstantiated and inherently weak, especially against the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by the police officers, which was not convincingly overturned.
The Court also ruled that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved. While the prosecution admitted that the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items were not done in the presence of the accused or the required witnesses under Section 21 of RA 9165, this procedural lapse did not automatically void the seizure. The implementing rules provide that non-compliance may be excused when there is a justifiable ground and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. Here, the chain of custody remained unbroken. The drugs were immediately marked at the scene, submitted for laboratory examination on the same day, and positively identified in court. The core of the corpus delicti was thus proven intact.