G.R. No. 191062 ; September 19, 2012
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MOHAMAD ANGKOB y MLANG, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

The case stemmed from a buy-bust operation conducted by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) on February 5, 2005, at Metropolis Mall in Alabang, Muntinlupa City. Acting on a tip regarding the illegal drug activities of a certain “Mhods,” a team was formed with PO3 Peter Sistemio as the poseur-buyer. The informant arranged a meeting, and at the designated Jollibee restaurant, the accused-appellant, Mohamad Angkob y Mlang (introduced as Mhods), arrived with his female companion, Sarkiya Daub (Sar). After a brief negotiation where the price for 50 grams of shabu was set at ₱150,000, the group moved outside. Sar handed Sistemio a white plastic bag containing a plastic sachet, and in exchange, Sistemio gave the marked money and boodle money to Angkob. Upon Sistemio’s pre-arranged signal, the backup officers arrested Angkob and Daub. The seized item, weighing 45.47 grams, tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
In his defense, Angkob claimed he was merely an innocent companion. He testified that Daub, a former schoolmate, asked him to accompany her to the mall as she was unfamiliar with the place. He alleged that after they ate at Jollibee, two men arrived, spoke with Daub, and later arrested both of them. He denied any participation in the drug transaction, claiming the police tried to extort money from him and that Daub was later released after presenting a fake birth certificate.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused-appellant for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt, particularly establishing the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration, as well as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court held that all elements of illegal sale under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 were duly established: (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 PO3 Sistemio, the poseur-buyer, was clear, consistent, and credible. He positively identified Angkob as the person who negotiated the price and to whom the marked money was handed, while his companion, Sar, physically delivered the shabu. Their actions demonstrated a conspiracy to sell the prohibited drug.
The Court rejected the defense of denial and frame-up, which cannot prevail over the positive identification by the police officers who performed their duties in a regular manner. The defense failed to present clear and convincing evidence of any ill motive on the part of the arresting officers to falsely accuse him. Regarding the chain of custody, the Court ruled that while the marking of the seized item was done at the PDEA office and not immediately at the place of arrest, this did not break the chain. The integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence were preserved, as the buy-bust team retained possession from the seizure until its turnover to the laboratory, and the forensic chemist confirmed the substance was shabu. The procedural deviation was justified under the circumstances and did not create reasonable doubt. The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of ₱1,000,000.00 was thus upheld.