GR 198024; (March, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 198024 March 16, 2015
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RAFAEL CUNANAN y DAVID alias “PAENG PUTOL”, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
An Information was filed charging appellant Rafael Cunanan with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The prosecution’s evidence established that on October 13, 2006, a buy-bust operation was conducted in Pasig City based on a tip from a confidential informant. PO1 Dario Gunda, Jr. acted as the poseur-buyer and was given two marked 100-peso bills. At the target area, the informant introduced PO1 Gunda to appellant as a drug user wanting to buy shabu worth P200. Appellant received the marked money, left briefly, and returned with a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, which he handed to PO1 Gunda. Upon the pre-arranged signal, appellant was arrested, and the marked money was recovered from his pocket. The seized plastic sachet was marked “Exh-A RCD/DG 10/13/06.” The substance was later confirmed by forensic examination to be 0.02 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride. The defense interposed denial and frame-up/extortion, claiming appellant was merely watching a bingo game when arrested and that police demanded P50,000.00 to settle the case.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s decision finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The appeal was without merit. The prosecution successfully established all elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs: the identities of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery and payment. Appellant was lawfully arrested in flagrante delicto during a valid buy-bust operation. Any irregularity in the arrest was deemed waived as appellant failed to question it before arraignment and actively participated in trial. The defense of frame-up was unsubstantiated and could not prevail over the positive testimonies of the police officers. The chain of custody of the seized drug was preserved; the marking of the plastic sachet immediately after seizure ensured its integrity, and non-compliance with the inventory and photograph requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165 did not render the seizure invalid under the circumstances. Appellant’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 imposed by the lower courts were affirmed, with the modification that appellant shall not be eligible for parole.