G.R. No. 182525 ; March 2, 2011
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Bertha Presas y Tolentino, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Two Informations were filed against appellant Bertha Presas y Tolentino before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City. In Criminal Case No. 03-2795, she was charged with illegal sale of 0.06 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) on July 30, 2003. In Criminal Case No. 03-2796, she was charged with illegal possession of 0.07 gram of shabu on the same date. She pleaded not guilty to both charges. During a joint pre-trial, the prosecution and defense stipulated on several facts, including the conduct of a forensic examination by P/Insp. Abraham Verde Tecson which yielded positive results for shabu, leading to the dispensation of the forensic chemist’s testimony.
The prosecution’s evidence established that based on a tip from an informant, a buy-bust operation was conducted. MADAC operative Gerardo Fariñas acted as the poseur-buyer, backed by a team including PO2 Rodrigo Igno. Marked money was used. At the location, the informant introduced Fariñas to appellant as a buyer. After Fariñas gave ₱200.00 to appellant, she handed him a plastic sachet. Upon Fariñas’ pre-arranged signal, the team arrested appellant. A search yielded the marked money and another plastic sachet from her pockets. The seized sachet was marked with appellant’s initials “PBT” at the scene. The specimens were submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory, where Chemistry Report No. D-959-03 confirmed they were positive for shabu.
The defense presented appellant as its lone witness. She testified that on the date in question, men forced their way into her house, dragged her out, and brought her to the barangay hall where she was frisked and made to undress. Nothing was found on her, but she was later taken for a drug test. She denied selling shabu or any knowledge of a buy-bust operation.
The RTC found appellant guilty of illegal sale under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 in Criminal Case No. 03-2795, sentencing her to life imprisonment and a ₱500,000.00 fine. She was acquitted of the illegal possession charge in Criminal Case No. 03-2796 for insufficiency of evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s judgment. Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the credibility of prosecution witnesses, the non-presentation of the forensic chemist, and alleged non-compliance with the chain of custody rules under R.A. No. 9165 .

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of the accused-appellant for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the decision of the Court of Appeals, thereby upholding appellant’s conviction.
The Court held that all elements of illegal sale of shabu were duly established: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. Appellant was caught in flagrante delicto through a legitimate buy-bust operation. The Court accorded respect to the factual findings and credibility assessments of the trial court.
The Court addressed appellant’s specific contentions:
1. Credibility of Witnesses: The alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses (regarding prior surveillance) were minor and did not affect the core fact of the buy-bust sale.
2. Non-presentation of the Forensic Chemist: This was immaterial because the defense, during pre-trial, stipulated to the forensic chemist’s qualifications and the findings of the Chemistry Report, which was admitted as evidence.
3. Chain of Custody: The Court found that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved. The sachet was immediately marked at the scene with appellant’s initials in her presence. The stipulated Chemistry Report confirmed the substance was shabu. The incident was documented in a Spot Report. While the implementing rules of R.A. No. 9165 outline a procedure for custody, the Court ruled that non-compliance does not automatically invalidate a seizure, provided the integrity of the evidence is maintained, as it was in this case.
The defense of denial, being inherently weak, could not prevail over the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, appellant’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000.00 was affirmed.