GR 212169; (December, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 212169. December 13, 2017.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. JOJO EJAN y BAYATO, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
Jojo Ejan y Bayato was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The prosecution evidence established that on April 2, 2008, a buy-bust operation was conducted in Dumaguete City by a team from the NBI, PDEA, and local police. A confidential informant acted as poseur-buyer and handed marked money to appellant in exchange for a plastic sachet. SPO1 Allen June Germodo witnessed the transaction from a distance and signaled the backup team. Appellant was apprehended after a brief chase. The seized sachet was immediately marked “JE-BB 4-2-08” at the place of arrest.
An inventory of the seized item was conducted at the scene in the presence of the appellant, a DOJ representative, a media representative, and a barangay kagawad, all of whom signed the inventory receipt. The sachet was then forwarded to the crime laboratory, where forensic examination confirmed the contents to be 0.06 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. The defense presented a different version, claiming the appellant was merely resting in a friend’s house when he was forcibly taken by armed men who planted evidence, but the trial court found the prosecution’s narrative more credible.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of the accused-appellant for illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that all elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. The testimonies of the poseur-buyer and the arresting officers established the consummated sale. The Court also ruled that the chain of custody over the seized drug was unbroken, preserving its integrity and evidentiary value. The required witnesses under Section 21 of RA 9165 were present during the inventory at the place of arrest. The marking was done immediately at the scene, and the sachet was kept in continuous custody until its laboratory examination, which confirmed it was shabu. The defense of frame-up was rejected for being unsubstantiated and for failing to overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by the apprehending officers. Thus, the guilt of the accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt.