G.R. No. 189277; December 05, 2012
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RICARDO REMIGIO y ZAPANTA, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution’s case, anchored on the testimony of PO2 Romelito Ramos, established that a buy-bust operation was conducted against appellant Ricardo Remigio, alias “Footer,” on April 17, 2003, in Cainta, Rizal. Acting as poseur-buyer, PO2 Ramos approached Remigio after a signal from an informant and said, “pare paiskor ng piso,” meaning a request for One Hundred Pesos worth of shabu. Remigio handed over a plastic sachet, and PO2 Ramos gave the marked money. Upon arrest, Remigio yielded the marked bill and another sachet from his pocket, and three more sachets were found in his motorcycle’s compartment. The seized items tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The defense presented a different narrative. Remigio testified he was merely buying food when PO2 Ramos, in uniform, and an informant approached, asked if he was “Footer,” and demanded he empty his pockets. He claimed a sachet was planted in his wallet. He alleged being asked for Php20,000.00 at the station to drop the case. His testimony was corroborated by a witness, Nelia Diolata, who stated she saw the arrest and heard the police ask for “Footer.”

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt, particularly concerning the credibility of the buy-bust operation and the integrity of the seized drugs.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimony of PO2 Ramos credible, straightforward, and consistent on the essential elements of the sale: the identities of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery. The alleged inconsistencies (e.g., whether the operation was pre-planned or recorded post-arrest) were deemed minor and did not affect the core narrative of the illicit transaction. The defense of frame-up and extortion was rejected for being unsubstantiated and inherently weak, especially against the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the police officers, which was not convincingly overturned.
Crucially, the Court ruled that the chain of custody over the seized drugs was sufficiently established. PO2 Ramos testified to marking the items and personally delivering them to the crime laboratory for examination, which yielded a positive result. While the ideal procedure under Section 21 of RA 9165 was not meticulously followed, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were preserved. Non-compliance, absent proof of bad faith, does not automatically void the seizure. The prosecution successfully demonstrated an unbroken chain, and the positive drug test report confirmed the nature of the seized items, leading to the affirmance of the lower courts’ decisions.