G.R. No. 205414, April 4, 2016.
People of the Philippines, Appellee, vs. Eduardo Dela Cruz y Gumabat @ “Eddie”, Appellant.

FACTS

Appellant Eduardo Dela Cruz y Gumabat was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The information alleged that on or about October 23, 2009, in Manila, he willfully and unlawfully sold to a poseur-buyer one blister pack labeled “Valium” containing ten round blue tablets weighing 1.720 grams, which tested positive for diazepam. Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution’s version, based on the testimonies of police officers involved in a buy-bust operation, is as follows: On October 22, 2009, a confidential informant reported appellant’s illegal drug activities on Solis Street, Tondo, Manila. A buy-bust team was formed, with PO1 Jaycee John Galotera as the poseur-buyer, using three marked P100 bills. The team proceeded to the area in the early hours of October 23. PO1 Galotera and the informant met appellant, who, after a conversation, sold one blister pack of Valium tablets for P300. Upon consummation of the sale, PO1 Galotera gave the pre-arranged signal, and appellant was arrested. The seized tablets were marked, and appellant was turned over to the investigator. Forensic examination confirmed the tablets contained diazepam.
The defense presented a different account: Appellant testified he was a jeepney driver playing “cara y cruz” (a gambling game) with a friend at a tricycle terminal on Solis Street in the afternoon of October 23 when police officers arrived and arrested them. He denied selling drugs. His mother and a tricycle driver, Roberto Balatbat, corroborated his presence at the terminal for gambling, not a drug transaction.
The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

ISSUE

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

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding appellant’s conviction.
The Court addressed several arguments raised by appellant. First, on the legality of the warrantless arrest, it ruled that appellant was estopped from questioning the arrest as he raised the issue only on appeal and never objected during arraignment. Substantively, the arrest was valid under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, as it was effected after a legitimate buy-bust operation where appellant was caught in flagrante delto selling dangerous drugs.
Second, the Court found the prosecution successfully established all elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment. The testimonies of the police officers, particularly PO1 Galotera, were clear, consistent, and credible, detailing the transaction from the initial contact to the consummation of the sale. The defense of denial and frame-up, being inherently weak, could not prevail over the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses. The absence of the marked money as evidence did not create a hiatus in the prosecution’s case, as the sale was adequately proven.
Third, regarding the custody and handling of the seized drugs, the Court found that the chain of custody was substantially complied with. The item was immediately marked at the scene by the apprehending officer, turned over to the investigator, photographed, and forwarded to the forensic laboratory for examination, which confirmed the presence of diazepam. The parties also stipulated on the existence and due execution of the Chemistry Report. While the apprehending officers did not conduct a physical inventory and photograph the drugs at the place of seizure in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media, the Department of Justice, and any elected public official, as ideally required by Section 21 of RA 9165, the Court held that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item were preserved. The prosecution provided justifiable grounds for the procedural lapses, noting the operation occurred late at night, and the police officers ensured the item’s integrity through immediate marking and proper handling. Non-compliance with Section 21 does not automatically render the seizure invalid or the evidence inadmissible, provided the prosecution proves a justifiable reason and the integrity of the evidence is preserved.
Therefore, appellant’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.