G.R. No. 213914, June 6, 2018
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. Manuel Ferrer y Remoquillo a.k.a. “Kano,” Kiyaga Macmod y Usman a.k.a. “Kiyaga” and Dimas Macmod y Mama a.k.a. “Dimas,” Accused-Appellants

FACTS

Accused-appellants were charged with the illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The prosecution alleged that on August 12, 2006, a buy-bust operation was conducted at a mall parking lot in Muntinlupa City. PO1 Viernes acted as the poseur-buyer and transacted with Manuel Ferrer for 98.29 grams of shabu worth ₱500,000. Upon receiving two plastic sachets from co-accused Kiyaga Macmod and handing over the marked money to Dimas Macmod, Viernes gave the pre-arranged signal, leading to their arrest. The seized items were marked, inventoried, and later confirmed by forensic examination to be methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The defense presented a frame-up and denial. Manuel Ferrer claimed he was merely meeting a couple to discuss a possible pirated CD transaction when he was arrested. He asserted that the arresting officers planted the drugs and that no buy-bust operation occurred. Kiyaga and Dimas Macmod corroborated this, stating they were merely accompanying Ferrer and were suddenly apprehended without cause.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of the accused-appellants for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals, ruling that all elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were established: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. The testimony of PO1 Viernes, the poseur-buyer, was found credible and sufficient to prove the consummated sale. The defense of frame-up and denial, being inherently weak, could not prevail over the positive identification by the police officers.
Crucially, the Court ruled that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved. While the defense argued non-compliance with the chain of custody under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, specifically the absence of required witnesses (a representative from the media, the Department of Justice, and an elected public official) during the physical inventory and photographing, the Court applied the saving clause. The prosecution satisfactorily explained that earnest efforts to secure these witnesses were made but were unsuccessful due to the unavailability of the local officials at the time. The arresting officers’ immediate marking of the seized items at the scene, the unbroken chain of custody from seizure to forensic examination, and the consistent positive identification of the evidence in court constituted substantial compliance, ensuring the drugs’ integrity was not compromised. Thus, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty stands.