G.R. No. 182231 ; April 16, 2009
The People of the Philippines, Plaintiff, vs. Eddie Gum-Oyen y Sacpa, Appellee.

FACTS

Two separate informations for violations of Sections 5 (illegal sale) and 11 (illegal possession) of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) were filed against appellant Eddie Gum-Oyen y Sacpa. He pleaded not guilty. The prosecution’s evidence established that on February 5, 2003, based on a report from a police asset, a buy-bust operation was conducted in Naguilian, La Union. Appellant arrived carrying a blue bag, handed a brick of marijuana to the poseur-buyer (the asset), and received marked money. Upon arrest, three additional bricks of marijuana were recovered from his bag. The seized items were marked, and requests for laboratory examination were made. Chemistry reports confirmed the substances were marijuana and that the marked money and appellant’s hands tested positive for ultraviolet powder. The defense claimed instigation, alleging that a police asset named Roger Fundanera repeatedly asked and gave him money to buy marijuana from a contact in San Gabriel, and that he was merely delivering the marijuana to Roger when arrested. The Regional Trial Court acquitted appellant of illegal sale but convicted him of illegal possession, initially imposing the death penalty. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to life imprisonment.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant’s conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs despite the alleged failure of the prosecution to establish the identity of the corpus delicti.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The prosecution successfully proved all elements of illegal possession: (1) the appellant was in possession of three bricks of marijuana; (2) such possession was not authorized by law; and (3) the appellant freely and consciously possessed the drug. The Court held that the prosecution established the corpus delicti with moral certainty. The apprehending officers immediately turned over the seized bricks to the investigator, who marked them. These marked items were then submitted to the crime laboratory, where they tested positive for marijuana, and were properly identified and offered in evidence during trial. The chain of custody was thus preserved. The Court found the defense of instigation unavailing, noting inconsistencies in appellant’s testimony and the failure to present the alleged instigator, Roger Fundanera, as a witness. The Court also ruled that the absence of a prior surveillance or a test-buy did not invalidate the buy-bust operation, and that non-compliance with the witness requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 (regarding inventory in the presence of media, DOJ, and elected officials) did not render the seizure invalid under the circumstances, as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved.