G.R. No. 181249; March 14, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BAIDA SALAK y BANGKULAS, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

On May 23, 2001, the NBI Special Task Force received information that a certain “Baida” was selling shabu at Litex Market, Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City. A team was formed and conducted surveillance. An asset informed the team that appellant Baida Salak was in possession of shabu and willing to transact. A buy-bust operation was authorized, with Special Investigator Edgardo Kawada as the poseur-buyer. After changing meeting venues per appellant’s instructions, the transaction was finalized at Litex Market. Appellant arrived with two male companions, entered Kawada’s vehicle, and handed over three heat-sealed plastic sachets containing a white crystalline substance in exchange for ₱180,000. Kawada arrested appellant after she received the money. The seized items, marked “REM 1,” “REM 2,” and “REM 3,” were submitted to the NBI Forensic Chemistry Division. Forensic analysis confirmed the substance was methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) with a total weight of 305.4604 grams. The defense presented a different version, claiming appellant was merely asked by her husband to accompany an acquaintance’s group to meet a relative (Boy Life/Karim Salak) to buy VCDs, and that she was later forcibly taken from her store after a failed chase of Boy Life, who had allegedly sold shabu to the group. The defense also presented witnesses who corroborated this account and requested a quantitative analysis, which showed the shabu’s purity.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the Regional Trial Court’s decision finding accused-appellant Baida Salak guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of a regulated drug under Section 15, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court found the prosecution successfully proved all elements of illegal sale of shabu: (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 testimonies of the poseur-buyer and the back-up operative were credible, consistent, and constituted an unbroken chain of custody over the seized drugs from the moment of confiscation, marking, submission to the laboratory, and presentation in court. The defense of denial and frame-up was deemed weak and unsupported by clear and convincing evidence, especially in light of the positive identification by the NBI agents. The quantitative analysis report on the drug’s purity was irrelevant to establishing the crime of illegal sale, which is consummated upon the sale transaction itself regardless of the drug’s purity. The penalty imposed by the lower courts—reclusion perpetua and a fine of ₱500,000—was affirmed as proper.