G.R. No. 186530; December 14, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. NELLY ULAMA y ARRISMA, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Nelly Ulama y Arrisma was charged with violations of Sections 5 (Sale of Dangerous Drugs) and 15 (Use of Dangerous Drugs), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The prosecution’s evidence established that based on confidential information about appellant’s drug trafficking, a buy-bust operation was planned by the Makati Drug Abuse Council (MADAC) in coordination with the Makati Police and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). On April 10, 2003, at the corner of Dapitan and San Nicholas Streets, Makati City, MADAC operative Edison Bill acted as poseur-buyer. Appellant asked how much shabu was needed; the poseur-buyer replied “Katorse lang” and handed over two marked one hundred peso bills. Appellant left to fetch the drugs, returned, and handed a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance to the poseur-buyer. Upon the pre-arranged signal, the team arrested appellant and two others, Jerrylyn Bernal and Robert Mercado. The marked money was recovered from appellant’s pocket. MADAC operative Edison Bill marked the seven confiscated plastic sachets at the place of arrest, including the one from appellant marked “NAU.” The items were submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory, where qualitative examination yielded positive results for methylamphetamine hydrochloride. Appellant denied the charges, claiming she was merely washing clothes when four men entered her house without a warrant, searched it, and forcibly brought her to the barangay hall. She was acquitted of the Section 15 charge but convicted for violation of Section 5 by the Regional Trial Court, which sentenced her to life imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000.00. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s finding that accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals, sustaining the conviction. The Court held that all elements of the illegal sale of dangerous drugs were proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. The testimony of the poseur-buyer, corroborated by other arresting officers, clearly established the transaction. The Court found no merit in appellant’s claim of a break in the chain of custody. The marking of the seized item with “NAU” at the place of arrest immediately after confiscation, in the presence of appellant, and its subsequent submission to the crime laboratory for examination, which confirmed it was shabu, preserved the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti. Appellant’s defense of denial and frame-up, unsupported by clear and convincing evidence of ill motive on the part of the arresting officers, could not prevail over the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses. The alleged failure to strictly comply with the witness requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165 was not raised as an issue and, regardless, did not automatically render the seizure invalid or the items inadmissible. The Court found no reversible error in the assessments of the lower courts.