GR 188570; (July, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 188570; July 6, 2010
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. CHRISTOPHER DE MESA and EMMANUEL GONZALES, Appellants.
FACTS
Appellants Christopher de Mesa and Emmanuel Gonzales were convicted for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs under R.A. 9165. The prosecution evidence established that a buy-bust operation was conducted after a confidential informant reported De Mesa’s drug activities. PO2 Peter Sistemio acted as the poseur-buyer. At the meeting place, De Mesa handed Sistemio a plastic bag containing ten sachets of suspected shabu. Upon receiving the item, Sistemio introduced himself as an agent and arrested the appellants. The seized substance was later confirmed by the PNP Crime Laboratory to be 45.79 grams of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride.
The defense presented a different narrative, claiming they were merely having lunch when they were mistakenly arrested after a transaction occurred between another man and the police officer. They alleged no drugs were recovered from them, and they were later extorted. They argued the prosecution failed to prove the integrity of the seized drugs, citing non-compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of R.A. 9165, such as the lack of immediate inventory and photographing of the evidence at the place of arrest.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, particularly in establishing the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court held that all elements of illegal sale were proven: the transaction occurred, the corpus delicti was presented as evidence, and the appellants were identified as the sellers. Regarding the chain of custody, the Court ruled that while the arresting team did not strictly comply with Section 21’s requirements by not immediately conducting an inventory at the place of seizure, such procedural lapses did not automatically invalidate the seizure or render the evidence inadmissible. The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved. The marking of the evidence with the poseur-buyer’s initials was done at the police station, and the forensic chemist confirmed the substance’s identity. The appellants failed to provide evidence of bad faith, tampering, or ill motive on the part of the officers to overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. Thus, the guilt of the appellants was established beyond reasonable doubt.