G.R. No. 191392 ; March 14, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ROLLY SORIAGA y STO. DOMINGO, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

On October 15, 2003, Barangay Captain Manuel Adao received information about accused-appellant Rolly Soriaga’s illegal drug selling activities in Barangay Palanan, Makati City. A joint buy-bust operation was conducted by the police and the Makati Anti-Drug Abuse Council (MADAC). Herminia Facundo was designated as the poseur-buyer. Accompanied by an informant, Facundo met Soriaga at the corner of Arellano and Bautista Streets. After the informant vouched for Facundo, Soriaga asked how much she would buy, to which she replied, “Piso lang.” Soriaga then took the ₱100.00 marked money from Facundo, placed it in his pocket, and handed over a plastic sachet containing a crystalline substance from his left pocket. Facundo gave the pre-arranged signal, and the buy-bust team arrested Soriaga. The marked money was recovered from his pocket. Facundo marked the seized plastic sachet with “RSD” and placed the same initials on the recovered money. The seized item was turned over to police investigator PO2 Reynaldo Juan and later tested positive for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu). Soriaga was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 . The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Soriaga of illegal sale but acquitted him of a separate charge for illegal use of drugs. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision in toto.

ISSUE

1. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
2. Whether the prosecution established the chain of custody of the seized shabu, particularly in light of alleged non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 regarding inventory and photographing of seized items.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the conviction.
1. On Proof of Guilt: The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved all elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs: (i) the accused sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another, and (ii) he knew it was a prohibited drug. The testimony of poseur-buyer Facundo, who had no motive to falsely testify, established the actual exchange of marked money for the shabu. The corpus delicti (the seized drug) was presented in court with its identifying marks intact. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is accorded great respect.
2. On Chain of Custody and Compliance with Section 21: The Court ruled that the alleged non-compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules (specifically the immediate inventory and photographing of seized items) does not render the arrest illegal or the seized items inadmissible. The requirements are not inflexible. What is paramount is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. The Court found the chain of custody unbroken: the seized sachet was immediately marked by the poseur-buyer at the scene, turned over to the police investigator, subjected to laboratory examination, and presented in court. The integrity of the corpus delicti was thus preserved. Non-compliance with inventory and photography procedures does not automatically invalidate the seizure, provided the integrity of the evidence is maintained.
The conviction of accused-appellant Rolly Soriaga for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 is sustained. The penalty imposed by the RTC, life imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000.00, stands.