GR 211672; (June, 2016) (Digest)
G.R. No. 211672. June 01, 2016
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOHN HAPPY DOMINGO Y CARAG, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
FACTS
Accused-appellant John Happy Domingo was convicted by the Regional Trial Court for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165. The prosecution evidence established that a buy-bust operation was conducted where PO1 Marcial Eclipse acted as the poseur-buyer. Accused-appellant sold a heat-sealed plastic sachet of shabu to PO1 Eclipse in exchange for two marked Php100 bills. The seized item was marked, and after qualitative examination, tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The defense interposed denial and frame-up, alleging the charge was fabricated because his brother failed to repair the cellphone of a police asset. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals rejected this defense, giving weight to the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the apprehending officers. The CA also ruled that the chain of custody over the seized drug was properly established despite arguments over procedural lapses in the inventory.
ISSUE
Whether the lower courts gravely erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. For illegal sale, the prosecution must prove: (1) the identities of the buyer, seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the drug and payment. All elements were established through the clear testimony of PO1 Eclipse, who detailed the transaction and identified the marked money and the confiscated sachet, which was presented as the corpus delicti.
The defense of denial and frame-up was correctly disregarded. Such defenses are inherently weak and cannot prevail over the positive identification by a police officer in a legitimate buy-bust operation. The alleged motive—a dispute over a cellphone repair involving a non-police asset—was insufficient to prove ill-motive on the part of the official buy-bust team. The Court upheld the presumption of regularity in their duties.
Regarding the chain of custody, the Court ruled that while the arresting officers did not strictly comply with the inventory and photographing requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165, such non-compliance did not automatically invalidate the seizure. The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug were preserved. The prosecution demonstrated an unbroken chain through testimony on the marking, turnover to the investigator, submission to the crime laboratory, and eventual presentation in court. The identity of the illicit drug was thus established beyond reasonable doubt.