GR 212632; (August, 2016) (Digest)
G.R. No. 212632 . August 24, 2016.
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Den Ando y Sadullah and Sarah Ando y Bernal, Accused-Appellants.
FACTS
On October 3, 2006, an informant told PO3 Leonardo Ramos that a certain “Ben” was selling shabu in Barangay Culiat, Quezon City. A buy-bust team was formed, with PO1 Peggy Lyn Vargas as the poseur-buyer using a marked P500 bill. The operation proceeded the next day at around 4:00 a.m. PO1 Vargas and the informant went to the house of alias “Ben.” Vargas asked for P500 worth of shabu and handed over the marked money. Alias “Ben” called his wife, who retrieved a small plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance from her bra and gave it to Vargas. Vargas then gave the pre-arranged signal. The team arrested the couple, who were identified as accused-appellants Den Ando and Sarah Ando. The marked money was recovered from Den. The seized sachet was marked “PV-10-04-06” and subsequent examination confirmed it contained 0.15 gram of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). The accused-appellants denied the charges, claiming police officers forcibly entered their home, searched it, arrested them without cause, and later demanded P50,000 for their release.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of accused-appellants for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs).
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that all elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were proven: (1) the identities of the buyer (PO1 Vargas) and sellers (the Andos), the object (shabu), and the consideration (P500); and (2) the delivery of the shabu and payment. The prosecution successfully established the transaction occurred and presented the corpus delicti. The positive and credible testimonies of the police officers prevailed over the accused-appellants’ bare denials and unsubstantiated claim of frame-up. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty stands in the absence of clear evidence of improper motive or failure of duty.
Regarding the alleged non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 (custody and disposition of seized drugs), the Court ruled it was not fatal. The apprehending team preserved the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. Prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for a valid buy-bust, especially with an informant present. Marking at the police station instead of the arrest site is permissible under the rules. While representatives from the media, DOJ, or elected officials were not present during inventory, the police tried to secure barangay officials who refused to sign, and the accused-appellants were present. Substantial compliance with the chain of custody requirements is sufficient when the integrity of the evidence is preserved. The penalties of life imprisonment and a P500,000 fine for each accused were affirmed.