G.R. No. 194999 , February 9, 2015
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Gloria Nepomuceno y Pedraza, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

On August 11, 2003, two Informations were filed against Gloria Nepomuceno y Pedraza (appellant) in the RTC of Makati for violations of RA 9165. Criminal Case No. 03-2917 charged her with illegal sale of 0.03 gram of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) for ₱100.00. Criminal Case No. 04-1407 charged her with illegal use of the same drug. She pleaded not guilty to both.
The prosecution evidence established that based on a confidential informant’s report, a buy-bust team was formed with PO2 Vicente Barrameda as poseur-buyer. On August 9, 2003, in Makati City, PO2 Barrameda and the informant approached appellant. PO2 Barrameda gave marked money for ₱100.00 worth of shabu, and appellant handed over a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. PO2 Barrameda gave the pre-arranged signal, and the team arrested appellant, recovering the marked money. The seized sachet was marked “GPN.” Laboratory examination confirmed the substance was shabu.
The appellant denied the charges, claiming she was arrested in front of her house in Manila by men in civilian clothes who dragged her away and inquired about an alleged drug supplier.

ISSUE

The main issues are: (1) whether the prosecution proved the appellant’s guilt for illegal sale of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt; (2) whether the warrantless arrest was lawful; and (3) whether non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 (inventory and photographing requirements) invalidates the seizure and conviction.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction.
1. The prosecution successfully proved all elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs: the identities of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery and payment. PO2 Barrameda’s testimony, corroborated by PO1 Santos, positively identified appellant as the seller. The police officers are presumed to have performed their duties regularly in the absence of proof of motive to falsely accuse. Appellant’s defenses of alibi, denial, and frame-up are weak, uncorroborated, and common in drug cases.
2. The warrantless arrest was lawful as appellant was caught in flagrante delicto during a valid buy-bust operation. Furthermore, any objection to the legality of the arrest was deemed waived as appellant failed to move for the quashal of the Information prior to arraignment and only raised the issue on appeal.
3. Non-compliance with the strict requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165 regarding physical inventory and photographing in the presence of specified witnesses does not automatically invalidate the seizure or render the evidence inadmissible. Under the Implementing Rules, non-compliance is permissible under justifiable grounds as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. In this case, the integrity of the seized shabu was preserved through the marking of the sachet immediately after seizure and the establishment of a clear chain of custody. The failure to photograph and inventory did not affect the evidence’s integrity.
The RTC convicted appellant for illegal sale and sentenced her to life imprisonment and a ₱500,000.00 fine, while acquitting her for illegal use due to insufficient evidence. The CA affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court upheld these rulings.