G.R. No. 197818 , February 25, 2015.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ALLAN DIAZ y ROXAS, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Allan Diaz y Roxas was charged with illegal sale of shabu under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 . The prosecution’s version, based on the testimony of PO2 Arthuro Coronel, the poseur-buyer, states that a buy-bust operation was conducted on August 2, 2008, in Kahilum I, Pandacan, Manila. After a confidential informant introduced PO2 Coronel as a buyer, appellant stated he had shabu. PO2 Coronel gave marked money in exchange for a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. Upon the pre-arranged signal, appellant was arrested. The seized item was marked “ARD-1” at the police station and later confirmed by forensic examination to be 0.018 gram of methylamphetamine hydrochloride. Appellant denied the accusation, claiming he was arbitrarily arrested while walking home on August 1, 2008, and only learned of the charge at the inquest prosecutor’s office.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s conviction of the accused-appellant for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, despite alleged non-compliance with the custody and disposition procedures under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 .

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction with modification. The Court held that the factual findings and credibility assessments of the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are entitled to great respect. The testimony of PO2 Coronel was credible and supported by evidence, while appellant’s defense of denial was self-serving and unsubstantiated. On the issue of non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 (marking, inventory, and photographing in the presence of specified witnesses), the Court ruled that the objection to admissibility on this ground was raised for the first time on appeal before the CA and was thus waived. Furthermore, the Court found that the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs from the seizure, marking at the police station (which PO2 Coronel explained was done due to darkness at the scene), turnover to the investigator, forensic examination, and presentation in court. The integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were preserved. The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000.00 was affirmed, with the modification that appellant shall not be eligible for parole.