G.R. No. 184054; October 19, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. ARNEL ZAPATA y CANILAO, Appellant.

FACTS

The appellant, Arnel Zapata y Canilao, was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs). The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on evidence from a buy-bust operation. The prosecution presented Police Officer (PO)3 John U. Salcedo, who acted as the poseur-buyer, and PO1 Edwin Carlos. Their testimonies established that after a two-month surveillance, PO3 Salcedo bought two plastic sachets containing white crystalline substances from the appellant in exchange for ₱300.00 marked money. The seized items were marked at the police station, submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory, and found positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu per Chemistry Report No. D-316-2004 by Police Inspector Maria Luisa David. The appellant’s urine sample also tested positive for shabu. The RTC sentenced him to life imprisonment and a ₱500,000.00 fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in toto. The appellant appealed, questioning the conduct of the buy-bust operation and the chain of custody of the seized drugs.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the appellant’s conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, particularly regarding the establishment of the elements of the crime and the integrity of the chain of custody of the seized items.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the appellant’s conviction. The prosecution successfully proved all elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs: (1) the identity of the buyer (PO3 Salcedo) and seller (appellant), the object (two plastic sachets of shabu), and the consideration (₱300.00); and (2) the delivery of the drugs and payment. The testimonies of PO3 Salcedo and PO1 Carlos were credible and consistent, and no improper motive was shown. The chain of custody was not broken: after seizure, the items were immediately marked at the police station, turned over to investigating officers, requested for laboratory examination, delivered to the crime lab, examined, and positively identified in court. The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved. The appellant’s failure to raise alleged non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 (custody and disposition of seized drugs) during trial precluded its consideration on appeal. Even assuming minor deviations, the Court ruled that strict compliance is not always required as long as the integrity of the evidence is maintained. The decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals were AFFIRMED.