G.R. No. 228953 . January 28, 2019.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. JOSH JOE T. SAHIBIL, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Josh Joe T. Sahibil was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution alleged that on January 31, 2012, a buy-bust operation was conducted at the Panabo Overland Transport Terminal. A confidential informant introduced the poseur-buyer, SPO1 Rosil Ellevera, to appellant. After negotiations, SPO1 Ellevera handed marked money in exchange for two sachets of white crystalline substance. Upon consummation of the sale, the buy-bust team arrested appellant. The seized items were marked at the police station, and an inventory was conducted in the presence of appellant, a barangay kagawad, and representatives from the media and the Department of Justice. The items were later confirmed to be methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The defense presented a denial and frame-up, claiming appellant was merely at the terminal to meet a friend when he was forcibly taken by individuals who later turned out to be police officers. He alleged he was detained and coerced into admitting the offense.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of the accused-appellant for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, despite alleged non-compliance with the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of RA 9165.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court held that all elements of illegal sale of drugs were proven: the transaction occurred, the corpus delicti was presented, and the poseur-buyer testified to the details. On the critical issue of chain of custody, the Court ruled that the procedural requirements under Section 21 were substantially complied with, and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. The buy-bust team provided justifiable grounds for marking the items at the police station instead of at the place of arrest, citing security concerns, appellant’s resistance, and the lack of a suitable area at the busy terminal. The stipulated chain of custody document, agreed upon by the defense, detailed the unbroken transfers of the evidence from the arresting officer to the forensic chemist and to the court. This stipulation dispensed with the need for further testimony and proved the links in the chain. The prosecution witnesses also identified the exhibits in court as the very items seized. Thus, the identity, integrity, and potency of the drugs were established beyond reasonable doubt, warranting the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000.00.