GR 210617; (December, 2016) (Digest)
G.R. No. 210617. December 07, 2016.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ORLANDO FERNANDEZ Y ABARQUIZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
FACTS
On November 18, 2009, a buy-bust operation was conducted against appellant Orlando Fernandez in Dagupan City. PO3 Christopher Baruelo acted as the poseur-buyer and handed a marked P500 bill to Fernandez in exchange for one plastic sachet of suspected shabu. Upon consummation of the sale, PO3 Baruelo gave the pre-arranged signal, leading to Fernandez’s arrest. Recovered from him were the marked money, drug paraphernalia, and a homemade gun. The seized items were marked, inventoried, and photographed at the police station in the presence of the appellant, a barangay kagawad, a CVO chief, and a media representative. The sachet was later confirmed by forensic examination to contain methamphetamine hydrochloride.
At trial, the prosecution presented witnesses detailing the operation and the chain of custody. The appellant denied the charges, claiming he was merely resting in his house when suddenly apprehended and mauled by individuals who planted evidence. He asserted the buy-bust was a frame-up. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of violating Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of the appellant for illegal sale of dangerous drugs despite alleged irregularities in the chain of custody of the seized item.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The core issue in prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is whether the sale transaction occurred and whether the illicit drug presented in court is the same substance bought from the accused. The Court found the prosecution successfully established all elements of the crime: the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery of the drugs and payment. PO3 Baruelo’s credible testimony provided a clear account of the sale.
Regarding the chain of custody, the Court ruled the police substantially complied with Section 21 of RA 9165. The marking of the seized sachet with “CFB-1” was done immediately at the police station by the poseur-buyer himself, PO3 Baruelo, who maintained custody until its turnover for laboratory examination. An inventory and photograph were taken in the presence of the appellant and the required witnesses—a barangay official, a community representative, and a media member. While the law prefers immediate marking at the place of seizure, marking at the nearest police station is acceptable, especially when the accused attempts to flee, as Fernandez did. The integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were thus preserved from seizure to presentation in court. The defense of frame-up, being inherently weak, failed in light of the police officers’ presumption of regularity in the performance of duty, which was not convincingly rebutted.