G.R. No. 215943. November 16, 2016.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. RANDY CLOMA y CABANA, Appellant.

FACTS

An Information was filed charging Randy Cloma with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The prosecution alleged that on August 25, 2005, a buy-bust operation was conducted in Cagayan de Oro City. SPO1 Efren Ellevera acted as poseur-buyer and handed marked money to Cloma in exchange for a sachet containing white crystalline substance. After the transaction, Cloma resisted arrest but was apprehended. The seized item was marked, turned over, and subsequently examined by the PNP Crime Laboratory, which confirmed the substance to be methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
Cloma denied the allegations, claiming there was no buy-bust operation and that his arrest and the seizure of evidence were illegal. He argued that the procedure for the custody and handling of evidence under RA 9165 was not followed, rendering the evidence inadmissible. The Regional Trial Court convicted Cloma, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Cloma appealed to the Supreme Court, reiterating his defenses and contending the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Cloma’s conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs despite alleged irregularities in the chain of custody of the seized item.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that all elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were established: (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 police officers involved in the buy-bust operation were credible and consistent. The Court found that the chain of custody was substantially complied with. The poseur-buyer immediately marked the seized sachet at the place of arrest, and it was subsequently turned over to the investigating officer and then to the crime laboratory for examination. The integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were preserved from the time of seizure until its presentation in court.
The Court ruled that minor procedural lapses, absent any showing of bad faith or that the evidence was tampered with, do not render the seizure void or the items inadmissible. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty stands in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Cloma’s denial and frame-up defense, being unsubstantiated, cannot prevail over the positive identification and testimonies of the police officers. His guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.