G.R. No. 197207 ; March 13, 2013
BENEDICTO MARQUEZ y RAYOS DEL SOL, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

On September 28, 2005, Elenita Bautista Bagongon, a guidance counselor at Emilio Aguinaldo High School, received reports from parents that a school employee was selling drugs to students. A student identified the petitioner, Benedicto Marquez y Rayos Del Sol, from a photograph. That same day, Bagongon saw students talking to the petitioner. As she approached, the students fled, and she noticed the petitioner holding a piece of paper. When asked, he claimed it was trash. The paper fell during a struggle, and Bagongon retrieved it, finding two tea bag-like sachets containing dried leaves. She reported to the school principal and administrative officer, who instructed security to detain the petitioner. The police were called. Upon arrival, SPO2 Joel Sioson and PO3 Edward Acosta inspected the sachets, questioned the petitioner, and brought him and the seized items to the police station. A forensic examination confirmed the sachets contained 1.49 grams of marijuana. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the petitioner guilty of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision. The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing non-compliance with procedural requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and a broken chain of custody.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner’s conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs should be upheld despite alleged non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and claims of a broken chain of custody.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The prosecution successfully established all elements of illegal possession: (a) the petitioner possessed an item identified as a prohibited drug (marijuana); (b) such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the possession was conscious and knowing. The Court upheld the lower courts’ assessment of witness credibility, noting the petitioner did not impute improper motive to the witnesses and that police officers are presumed to have regularly performed their duties.
Regarding chain of custody, the Court found no break. The evidence showed a clear sequence: Bagongon seized the sachets, handed them to school officials, then to PO3 Acosta upon police arrival. At the police station, the investigator marked them, and the station commander delivered them to the crime laboratory for examination, where they tested positive for marijuana. The integrity and evidentiary value were preserved.
On non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 , the Court ruled that strict adherence is not always fatal if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. In this case, the items seized were the same ones tested and presented in court. The police provided justifiable grounds for procedural lapses during trial. Notably, the initial custodian was a guidance counselor, not a law enforcer, and her failure to mark the items did not weaken the case, as she established the items were untampered when handed to police. Marking at the police station, rather than the seizure site, was acceptable under jurisprudence. The penalty imposed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA was sustained as conforming to the law.