G.R. No. 188313 . August 23, 2017
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. JALIL LAMAMA, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Accused Jalil Lamama was convicted by the Regional Trial Court for illegal sale of 102.5 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 , and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The prosecution evidence established that on October 29, 2004, a buy-bust operation was conducted in Urdaneta City based on information from a confidential informant. PO2 Marlo Velasquez acted as the poseur-buyer and negotiated with Lamama, who agreed to sell 100 grams of shabu for P100,000. Lamama retrieved three plastic sachets from his motorcycle’s toolbox, which were given to Velasquez in exchange for the marked money. Lamama was then arrested. Forensic examination confirmed the substance was shabu.
The defense presented a different version, claiming Lamama was framed. He testified that he was lured to a location by a certain Vargas under the pretense of earning a commission for finding a drug supplier, and upon arrival, PDEA agents arrested him near a table where shabu was placed. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Lamama challenged the credibility of the police testimony, the non-presentation of the informant, and alleged procedural lapses in the handling of the seized drugs, specifically the marking and inventory not being conducted immediately at the place of arrest.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Lamama’s conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs despite the alleged procedural irregularities in the conduct of the buy-bust operation and the custody of the seized items.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that all elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court clarified that the essential elements are: (1) the identity of the buyer, seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the illicit drug and payment. These were conclusively established through the clear and consistent testimony of PO2 Velasquez, the poseur-buyer, who detailed the transaction. The defense of frame-up was rejected for being weak and unsupported by clear and convincing evidence.
Regarding the chain of custody, the Court ruled that the procedural requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165 were substantially complied with. The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved. The marking, though done at the PDEA office, was justified as it was performed immediately upon arrival by the apprehending officer who had continuous custody. The required witnesses during inventory were present. The law allows flexibility in compliance, provided the integrity of the evidence is maintained, which was satisfied here. The non-presentation of the informant and the lack of ultraviolet powder on the buy-bust money were not fatal to the prosecution’s case, as the core transaction was credibly testified to by the arresting officer. Thus, the guilt of the accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt.