G.R. No. 185721; September 28, 2011
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Ricky Unisa y Islan, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Ricky Unisa y Islan was charged with violations of Sections 5 (Illegal Sale) and 11 (Illegal Possession), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). The charges stemmed from a buy-bust operation conducted on June 24, 2003, in Muntinlupa City. Based on reports from concerned citizens about the illegal drug trade of an alias “Ricky,” the Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Office-Drug Enforcement Unit (DAPCO-DEU) of Muntinlupa City conducted surveillance and confirmed the activity. A buy-bust team was formed, with PO1 Mark Sherwin Forastero as the poseur-buyer and PO1 Percival Medina as the arresting officer. The team prepared two marked ₱100.00 bills (Serial Nos. JX 392195 and DY 711514) as buy-bust money. After coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), the team proceeded to the target area. PO1 Forastero and PO1 Medina, accompanied by a confidential informant, approached appellant, who was identified by the informant. PO1 Forastero told appellant he wanted to buy ₱200.00 worth of shabu and handed him the marked money. Appellant received the money, retrieved a black coin purse from his left hand, took out one small heat-sealed plastic sachet containing suspected shabu, and handed it to PO1 Forastero. Upon receipt, PO1 Forastero arrested appellant. PO1 Medina recovered from appellant’s left hand the black coin purse, which contained 20 more small heat-sealed plastic sachets of suspected shabu and a pair of folding scissors. The marked money was recovered from appellant’s pocket. Appellant was informed of his constitutional rights and brought to the police station. The seized items were submitted for laboratory examination, which confirmed the substance was Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu). At trial, the prosecution presented PO1 Forastero and PO1 Medina. The defense presented appellant and his wife, who claimed the arrest was a frame-up and that appellant was forcibly taken from his home. The Regional Trial Court found appellant guilty of both charges. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established all elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The testimonies of the police officers were credible and consistent, detailing the buy-bust operation, the transaction, the arrest, and the recovery of the drugs and marked money. The defense of frame-up was rejected for being unsubstantiated and inherently weak. The Court found that the chain of custody of the seized drugs was sufficiently established. While the prosecution did not perfectly comply with the witness requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165 regarding the inventory of seized items, the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence were preserved. The police officers provided justifiable grounds for the absence of the required witnesses (a representative from the media, the Department of Justice, and an elected public official) by testifying that none were available at the late hour of the operation. The Court ruled that non-compliance with Section 21 does not automatically render the seizure invalid or the items inadmissible, provided the prosecution proves a justifiable reason and the integrity of the evidence is maintained. The penalties imposed by the lower courts were affirmed: for illegal sale (Section 5), life imprisonment and a ₱500,000.00 fine; for illegal possession (Section 11), an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fifteen (15) years and a ₱300,000.00 fine.