GR 218208; (January, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. 218208. January 24, 2018. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BRIAN VILLAHERMOSO, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Brian Villahermoso was charged with the illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The prosecution evidence established that a buy-bust operation was conducted on October 12, 2006, in Cebu City. PO2 Joseph Villaester acted as the poseur-buyer and was introduced by a confidential informant to Villahermoso as a buyer of shabu worth ₱32,000.00. Upon showing the boodle money, Villahermoso handed over two plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance. PO2 Villaester then gave the pre-arranged signal, leading to Villahermoso’s arrest. The seized items were marked at the police station, submitted to the crime laboratory, and tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The defense presented a different version, claiming the charge was fabricated. Villahermoso alleged he was in the area to collect payment for mangoes when he was apprehended by unidentified persons who introduced themselves as policemen, searched him, and took his money. A neighbor testified to seeing Villahermoso being held and taken away. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction despite alleged non-compliance with the chain of custody rule and the absence of prior surveillance.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The Court ruled that prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for a valid entrapment operation, especially when the buy-bust team is accompanied by an informant, as in this case. Regarding the chain of custody, the Court emphasized that while strict compliance is ideal, substantial compliance suffices if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved.
The marking of the seized sachets at the police station, rather than immediately at the place of arrest, was justified because the accused was resisting arrest, making immediate marking impracticable. The priority of the apprehending officers was to subdue and secure the accused. The integrity of the corpus delicti was maintained through an unbroken chain: the items were marked by a team member, submitted to the laboratory on the same day, and yielded a positive result for shabu. The testimony of PO2 Villaester credibly established the buy-bust operation’s legitimacy. The absence of a physical inventory and photograph did not impair the evidence’s integrity, as the prosecution proved the identity of the drugs seized from the accused and presented in court. Thus, guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.