G.R. No. 183088 September 17, 2009
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DONATO CAPCO y SABADLAB, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Donato Capco was charged with illegal sale of shabu under Section 5 and illegal use of dangerous drugs under Section 15 of Republic Act No. 9165. The prosecution evidence established that a buy-bust operation was conducted on August 21, 2003, in Makati City. PO2 Vicente Barrameda, acting as poseur-buyer, purchased one plastic sachet of shabu from Capco using marked money. Upon consummation of the sale, the backup team arrested Capco. Laboratory tests confirmed the seized substance was methylamphetamine hydrochloride and that Capco’s urine sample tested positive for the same drug.
The defense presented a different narrative, grounded on denial and frame-up. Capco claimed he was merely alighting from a tricycle near his residence when he was forcibly taken by unidentified men, brought to a vehicle, and interrogated about a certain “Gary.” He alleged he was later brought to a police office where money was demanded for his release. His testimony was corroborated by a witness, Ace Bernal, who stated he saw men chase someone and later take Capco from his house.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of the accused-appellant for illegal sale of dangerous drugs despite alleged irregularities in the chain of custody and the non-presentation of the confidential informant.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established all elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs: the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery of the illegal drug. The testimonies of the police officers, who were presumed to have performed their duties regularly, were clear, consistent, and credible. The defense of denial and frame-up, being inherently weak, could not prevail over the positive identification by the apprehending officers.
Regarding the chain of custody, the Court ruled that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item were preserved. While the ideal procedure under Section 21 of RA 9165 was not followed to the letter, the prosecution demonstrated an unbroken chain through the testimonies of PO2 Barrameda, who marked the seized sachet immediately after the buy-bust, and the forensic chemist, who confirmed the substance was shabu. The non-presentation of every individual who handled the evidence is not fatal as long as the chain of custody is established. Furthermore, the confidential informant was not an indispensable witness, as the sale was adequately proven through the poseur-buyer’s testimony. The guilt of the accused-appellant was thus proven beyond reasonable doubt.