G.R. No. 195774 , February 23, 2015
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LARRY BASILIO y HERNANDEZ, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Pursuant to information received, Police Senior Inspector Julian T. Olonan organized a buy-bust team on November 2, 2006, with SPO1 Federico Chua as the poseur-buyer. At about 10:00 p.m. in San Gabriel, Old Sta. Mesa, Manila, SPO1 Chua, accompanied by an informer, approached appellant Larry Basilio y Hernandez (alias “Kagi”). Appellant asked “magkano,” and SPO1 Chua replied “piso lang.” Appellant received a ₱100 bill from SPO1 Chua and handed over a small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. SPO1 Chua then signaled the arrest. Appellant was apprehended, informed of his rights, and brought to the police station. At the station, SPO1 Chua marked the sachet with “LBH” and turned it over to investigator PO3 Jimenez, who delivered it to the Manila Police District Crime Laboratory. Forensic Chemical Officer PSI Elisa G. Reyes conducted an examination, confirming the substance (weighing 0.083 gram) tested positive for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu). Appellant denied the accusation, claiming he was accosted by police officers looking for an alias “Peter” and was arrested and assaulted when he could not provide information.

ISSUE

Whether the lower courts correctly convicted appellant of the offense of illegal sale of shabu.

RULING

Yes, the conviction is affirmed with modification. All elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 were established: (1) the identity of the buyer (SPO1 Chua) and seller (appellant), the object (shabu), and consideration (₱100); and (2) the delivery of the drug and payment. The prosecution presented the corpus delicti, and the testimonies of the police officers were credible. The chain of custody was unbroken: the seized item was in SPO1 Chua’s possession after the buy-bust, marked at the police station, delivered to the crime lab, tested positive, and identified in court. While the apprehending officers failed to conduct an inventory and photograph the seized item as required by Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 , this non-compliance did not affect the evidentiary weight because the chain of custody was intact, preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the drug. Marking at the police station, instead of the place of seizure, is permissible. The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000.00 are affirmed, with the modification that appellant shall not be eligible for parole.