G.R. No. 184606 ; September 5, 2012
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CALEXTO DUQUE FUNDALES, JR., Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

On December 2, 2003, a buy-bust operation was conducted against appellant Calexto Duque Fundales, Jr. based on information about illegal drug trade. PO1 Cesarie Soquiño acted as poseur-buyer and was introduced to the appellant as a buyer of shabu worth ₱500.00. After receiving the marked money, appellant went inside his house and returned to hand over five plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance. PO1 Soquiño then gave the pre-arranged signal, leading to appellant’s arrest. Inside the house, four other individuals were found and also arrested. The seized items were marked, inventoried, and submitted for forensic examination, which confirmed the presence of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride. The prosecution presented these facts to establish the illegal sale.
The defense presented a different version, claiming the appellant and his companions were merely repairing a washing machine at home when eight armed men in civilian clothes entered without warning or permission, arrested them, and brought them to the police station. Appellant denied any involvement in a drug sale, asserting the operation was a frame-up. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant for violation of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs) but dismissed the charges for illegal possession of drugs and paraphernalia against him and his co-accused for insufficiency of evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant’s conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The core issue revolved around the credibility of the buy-bust operation and the integrity of the seized drugs. The Court emphasized that in prosecutions for illegal sale, the essential elements are: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. These elements were conclusively established through the straightforward testimony of PO1 Soquiño, who detailed the transaction. The defense of denial and frame-up was rejected for being inherently weak and unsupported by clear and convincing evidence. The Court found no ill motive for the police officers to falsely accuse the appellant.
Furthermore, the Court upheld the chain of custody of the seized drugs. While the defense argued non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 regarding the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items in the presence of specified witnesses, the Court ruled that such procedural lapses did not automatically invalidate the seizure. The integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence were preserved, as the prosecution demonstrated the seized items were the same ones examined and presented in court. The markings made immediately after seizure ensured authenticity. The Court reiterated that non-compliance with Section 21 is not fatal provided the prosecution offers a justifiable reason and proves the integrity of the corpus delicti, which was satisfactorily done in this case. Thus, the guilt of the appellant was proven beyond reasonable doubt.