G.R. No. 203048 , August 13, 2014
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Rusty Bala, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

This case stems from a buy-bust operation conducted on April 4, 2001, in Malabon City. A confidential informant reported a planned sale of 200 grams of shabu. A police team was formed, with PO1 Joel Fernandez as the poseur-buyer. Appellant Rusty Bala and his co-accused Jamil Mala arrived at the informant’s house. After introductions, Mala demanded payment, and Fernandez showed boodle money. Mala then gave suspected shabu wrapped in plastic to Fernandez. When Mala discovered the money was fake, a struggle ensued. The backup team entered, arrested the appellants, and confiscated the drugs, which tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride. Both were charged with violating Section 15, Article III of R.A. No. 6425 , as amended. The RTC initially convicted both. On appeal to the Supreme Court ( G.R. No. 152351 ), the conviction of Mala was affirmed, but the case against Bala was remanded to the trial court for reception of his evidence, as he had not testified initially. On remand, Bala testified, denying the charges and claiming he was arbitrarily arrested near a mosque after a worship service. His testimony was corroborated by a relative. The RTC rendered an Amended Decision convicting Bala. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Bala appealed, questioning the legality of the buy-bust operation, the handling of evidence, and the chain of custody.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant Rusty Bala’s conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding appellant’s conviction. The Court held that all elements of illegal sale of shabu were established: the identities of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery and payment. The testimony of the poseur-buyer, PO1 Fernandez, positively identified Bala as a participant in the sale. The Court found the defense of denial and frame-up weak and unsupported by clear and convincing evidence. Regarding the chain of custody, the Court ruled that while there was a procedural lapse (the marking was done at the police station and not immediately at the place of arrest), this did not impair the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs, as the chain of custody remained unbroken and the drugs’ identity was preserved. The penalty imposed by the lower courts—reclusion perpetua and a fine of One Million Pesos (₱1,000,000.00)—was affirmed as correct, there being no mitigating or aggravating circumstances.