G.R. No. 215731 , September 2, 2015.
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Rolando Carrera y Imbat, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

An Information was filed against appellant Rolando Carrera for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for selling and delivering methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). The prosecution’s evidence established that based on a tip from a confidential informant about a certain “Latif,” a buy-bust operation was planned. IO1 Joseph Samson was designated as the poseur-buyer. On July 14, 2009, at the target area in Caloocan City, appellant arrived after the informant’s call. Appellant handed a plastic packet containing a crystalline substance to IO1 Samson, who then arrested him. Due to a commotion and safety concerns, the apprehending team did not conduct the inventory and photograph of the seized items at the place of arrest or the nearest police station. Instead, they proceeded to the barangay hall of Brgy. Pinyahan, Quezon City, where an inventory was prepared in the presence of a barangay kagawad, and the items were marked and photographed. The seized items, later confirmed as shabu, were then brought to the crime laboratory. The defense claimed appellant was merely a tricycle driver waiting for a passenger when he was arbitrarily arrested. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant for illegal sale. The Court of Appeals modified the conviction to illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165 .

ISSUE

Whether appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the modified decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that while the prosecution failed to prove all elements of illegal sale, the elements of illegal possession were established beyond reasonable doubt. Appellant was found in possession of the dangerous drugs without legal authority. The Court ruled that the apprehending officers’ failure to conduct the inventory and marking at the place of arrest or the nearest police station was justified due to the commotion and legitimate fear for their safety, which constituted a justifiable ground under the law. The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved, as the chain of custody was shown to be unbroken from the seizure, marking, inventory, and laboratory examination. Thus, appellant was found guilty of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (P400,000.00).