GR 227427; (June, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. 227427, June 6, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. DELIA CALLEJO Y TADEJA AND SILVERA ANTOQUE Y MOYA @ “INDAY”, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
FACTS
Accused-appellants Delia Callejo and Silvera Antoque were charged with violating Sections 5 (sale) and 11 (possession), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The prosecution alleged that on August 13, 2010, a buy-bust operation was conducted in Makati City. PO3 Ramos acted as poseur-buyer and handed a marked Php500 bill to Antoque, after which Callejo gave him a plastic sachet of shabu. Upon arrest, another sachet was recovered from Callejo. The items were marked at the scene, and an inventory was conducted in the presence of a barangay kagawad before being submitted for laboratory examination, which confirmed the substance was methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The appellants denied the charges, claiming they were framed. Callejo testified she was forcibly arrested while doing laundry, and Antoque claimed she was merely visiting Callejo and was arrested without cause. They argued the prosecution failed to establish the integrity and identity of the seized drugs due to alleged procedural lapses in the chain of custody.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of the appellants for violations of Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court held that all elements of the crimes were proven beyond reasonable doubt. For illegal sale, the transaction where Antoque received payment and Callejo delivered the drugs was established through the credible testimony of the poseur-buyer. For illegal possession, the sachet found on Callejo was seized legitimately following her arrest. The defense of frame-up was rejected for being unsubstantiated.
Crucially, the Court ruled that the chain of custody was preserved. The buy-bust team substantially complied with Section 21 of RA 9165. The drugs were marked immediately at the place of arrest, an inventory was conducted with a barangay official present, and the items were promptly delivered to the crime laboratory. The stipulated testimony of the forensic chemist confirmed the integrity of the specimens received. The minor procedural deviations, such as the absence of a media or Department of Justice representative during inventory, did not impair the evidence’s integrity, as the apprehending officers provided justifiable grounds and the core requirement of preserving the evidence’s identity and integrity was met. The appellants’ guilt was thus sustained.