G.R. No. 214779 , February 7, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. ABDULWAHID PUNDUGAR, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

The prosecution’s evidence established that on May 24, 2008, a buy-bust operation was conducted against appellant Abdulwahid Pundugar in Muntinlupa City. Acting as poseur-buyer, PO2 Domingo Julaton III purchased a sachet of shabu from appellant for PHP 500. Upon the consummation of the sale, PO2 Julaton arrested appellant. A subsequent search yielded four more plastic sachets from appellant’s pocket and the buy-bust money. The seized items were marked at the police station, photographed, inventoried, and later submitted to the crime laboratory, where they tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Appellant was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 .
Appellant denied the accusations, claiming he was merely attending his store when suddenly arrested. He alleged that the police officers demanded money and framed him by planting the evidence. His daughter corroborated his testimony, stating that nothing was recovered from him or the store. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals, which held that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant’s conviction despite alleged non-compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 .

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that all elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs were proven beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution established the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery of the illegal drug. For illegal possession, it proved appellant had possession and control over the four additional sachets without legal authority.
On the chain of custody, the Court ruled that while the arresting officers did not strictly comply with the witness requirement under Section 21—as the inventory and photography were not conducted in the presence of a representative from the media, the Department of Justice, and an elected public official—such procedural lapse did not automatically impair the integrity of the seized items. The marking of the evidence was done immediately at the police station in the presence of appellant, and the forensic chemist confirmed receiving the specimens intact. The prosecution successfully demonstrated an unbroken chain from seizure to laboratory examination. Appellant’s defenses of denial and frame-up, being weak and unsupported by clear evidence, could not prevail over the positive testimonies of the police officers, who are presumed to have performed their duties regularly in the absence of proof of ill motive. The integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were thus preserved, warranting conviction.