G.R. No. 195194 , November 25, 2015
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Kamad Akmad y Ulimpain @ “Mhads” and Bainhor Akmad y Ulimpain @ “Bhads,” Accused-Appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Kamad Akmad and Bainhor Akmad were charged with violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for selling, delivering, and transporting 49.606 grams of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) on September 25, 2003, in Meycauayan, Bulacan. The prosecution’s version, based on the testimony of PO3 Rolando Navarette, is that a buy-bust operation was conducted after a civilian informant reported the appellants’ illegal drug activities. PO3 Navarette acted as poseur-buyer and was introduced to the appellants by the informant. Kamad took a plastic sachet from his pocket, gave it to Bainhor, who then handed it to PO3 Navarette. Upon receipt, PO3 Navarette gave a pre-arranged signal, leading to the arrest of the appellants. The seized item was marked by PO3 Navarette, inventoried in the presence of barangay officials, and later tested positive for shabu. The defense claimed they were merely drinking soft drinks at McDonald’s when they were forcibly taken, searched, and framed.

ISSUE

Whether the lower courts gravely erred in finding the accused-appellants guilty of the crime charged notwithstanding the prosecution’s failure to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that: (1) The prosecution successfully established all elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The absence of marked money is not fatal as long as the sale is proven and the corpus delicti is presented in court. The charge under Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 punishes not only sale but also the act of delivery, where payment is immaterial. (2) The procedural requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 regarding inventory and photography were substantially complied with. The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved through an unbroken chain of custody, as shown by the testimony on the marking, inventory in the presence of barangay officials, and laboratory examination. Non-compliance with Section 21’s strict procedures is not fatal if the integrity of the evidence is maintained. The defense of denial and frame-up cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the police officers and the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱500,000.00) was affirmed.