G.R. No. 207664, June 25, 2014.
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Gil Salvidar y Garlan, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Two separate Informations were filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City against accused-appellant Gil Salvidar y Garlan for violations of Sections 5 (Illegal Sale) and 11 (Illegal Possession), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). The charges stemmed from a buy-bust operation on November 12, 2007, where accused-appellant allegedly sold ten plastic sachets of marijuana to a poseur-buyer, PO3 Ramon Galvez, and was found in possession of an additional plastic box containing marijuana.
The prosecution’s version, presented through PO3 Galvez and PO2 Randulfo Hipolito, detailed the operation: a surveillance was conducted based on a tip; a buy-bust team was formed with PO3 Galvez as poseur-buyer using marked money; accused-appellant was approached, given the money, and handed over ten sachets in a Marlboro pack; upon the pre-arranged signal, accused-appellant was arrested and a further search yielded a plastic box of marijuana. The seized items were marked at the scene and later turned over to the investigator, SPO1 Fernando Moran, who prepared a request for laboratory examination. Police Chief Inspector Albert S. Arturo conducted the examination, which confirmed the substances were marijuana. The testimonies of SPO1 Moran and PCI Arturo were dispensed with based on stipulations.
The defense presented accused-appellant and his son, Guillar Salvidar, who claimed the arrest occurred a day earlier, on November 11, 2007, while they were playing video games. They alleged accused-appellant was forcibly taken by police officers, brought to the precinct, and asked for money in exchange for his release, and that the charges were fabricated after his wife argued with the officers.
The RTC convicted accused-appellant, finding the prosecution’s evidence credible and the chain of custody unbroken. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty for illegal possession to an indeterminate sentence. Accused-appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming accused-appellant’s conviction for violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals with modification. The Court found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
On the charge of Illegal Sale (Section 5), the Court held that all elements were proven: (1) the identities of the buyer (PO3 Galvez) and seller (accused-appellant), the object (marijuana), and the consideration (marked money); and (2) the delivery of the drugs and payment. The testimonies of the police officers were credible, consistent, and corroborative. The defense of denial and frame-up was unsubstantiated and could not prevail over the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses.
On the charge of Illegal Possession (Section 11), the Court held that the elements were likewise established: (1) accused-appellant was in possession of the plastic box containing marijuana; (2) such possession was not authorized by law; and (3) he was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. The marijuana was found in his possession during a lawful search incidental to a valid arrest.
Regarding the chain of custody, the Court ruled that while there was non-compliance with the strict witness requirement under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 (presence of a media representative, DOJ representative, and elected official during inventory), such did not automatically invalidate the seizure. The prosecution successfully established the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. The marking was done immediately at the scene by the apprehending officers in the presence of accused-appellant, and the stipulated testimonies accounted for the handling from seizure to laboratory examination. The justification for non-compliance—that the elected official was unavailable and the operation was done late at night—was accepted under the circumstances.
The penalties were imposed as follows: For Illegal Sale (Criminal Case No. C-78532), life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000. For Illegal Possession (Criminal Case No. C-78533), an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, as maximum, and a fine of P300,000. The drugs were ordered confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government.