G.R. No. 191198 ; January 26, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. NENE QUIAMANLON y MALOG, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Nene Quiamanlon y Malog was charged with violations of Sections 5 (Sale) and 11 (Possession), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). The charges stemmed from a buy-bust operation on June 15, 2005, at the Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant in Welcome Rotonda, Quezon City. Based on a tip from a confidential informant regarding the illegal drug activities of a certain “Myrna” (later identified as Quiamanlon), a police team was formed with PO3 Jerry Villamor as the poseur-buyer. PO3 Villamor, using a marked 500-peso bill, met Quiamanlon, who was introduced as a shabu seller. During the transaction, Quiamanlon handed one plastic sachet of white crystalline substance to PO3 Villamor, and two additional sachets fell from her pocket. Upon the consummation signal, the back-up team arrested Quiamanlon and her companion. The seized items were marked, inventoried, and turned over to the duty officer, then submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory, where they tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride. Quiamanlon pleaded not guilty and interposed the defense of denial, claiming she was arbitrarily arrested while eating at a Jollibee restaurant, forced to undress, and physically coerced at the police station to admit the offense and reveal a source.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s conviction of accused-appellant for violations of Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165, despite alleged failures to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and to establish the chain of custody of the seized drugs.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the convictions. The Court held that all elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs were proven beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of PO3 Villamor, the poseur-buyer, was credible and established the fact of sale, the delivery of the drugs, and the payment. Regarding possession, the recovery of two additional sachets from Quiamanlon’s person was duly witnessed and documented. The Court found the defense of denial weak and unsubstantiated against the positive identification by the police officers. On the chain of custody, the Court ruled that while the marking was done at the police station rather than immediately at the place of arrest, this did not break the chain, as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. PO3 Villamor maintained custody from the seizure until marking at the station, after which the items were properly turned over, inventoried, and examined. The procedural lapse was not shown to have affected the identity of the corpus delicti. The penalties imposed by the trial court, as affirmed by the CA—life imprisonment and a P500,000 fine for illegal sale, and an indeterminate prison term of 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and 9 months plus a P300,000 fine for illegal possession—were upheld.