GR 224300; (June, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 224300 . June 7, 2017.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOSE CUTARA y BRIX, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
Acting on information, a buy-bust team was formed with PO3 Marcial as poseur-buyer. Assisted by a confidential informant, the team proceeded to Parola Compound. The informant introduced PO3 Marcial to accused-appellant Cutara as a buyer. Cutara asked how much, and upon being told ₱200, he handed over a plastic sachet containing white crystalline granules in exchange for the marked money. PO3 Marcial gave the pre-arranged signal, arrested Cutara, and recovered the buy-bust money. The seized item was marked and later confirmed by laboratory examination to be 0.254 gram of shabu.
The accused-appellant denied the charges, claiming he was resting at home when armed men forcibly entered, searched his house, found nothing, and arrested him. He alleged he was later beaten and asked for ₱200,000 for his freedom. His brother-in-law corroborated this testimony.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of accused-appellant for illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction. For illegal sale, the prosecution must prove: (1) the identities of the buyer, seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery and payment. All elements were established through PO3 Marcial’s positive testimony detailing the transaction and his identification of the accused and the corpus delicti. The defense of denial cannot prevail over this clear and credible testimony.
The Court also ruled that alleged non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 regarding inventory procedures does not automatically invalidate the seizure or warrant acquittal. The law allows deviations provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. Here, the chain of custody remained unbroken: the item was immediately marked at the police station, submitted for laboratory examination, and positively identified in court. The prosecution thus overcame the presumption of innocence with proof beyond reasonable doubt. The penalty of life imprisonment and a ₱500,000 fine was sustained.