GR 229362; (June, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 229362 June 19, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee vs. ERNESTO SILAYAN Y VILLAMARIN, Appellant
FACTS
Appellant Ernesto Silayan was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution evidence established that based on a tip, a buy-bust operation was conducted. PO1 Rommel Bilog acted as the poseur-buyer. The informant introduced PO1 Bilog to Silayan, who was having a drinking session. After a brief conversation, Silayan handed a plastic sachet to the informant, and PO1 Bilog gave the marked money to Silayan. Upon the consummation of the sale, Silayan was arrested. The seized sachet was marked at the scene, and an inventory was conducted. The substance was later confirmed by forensic examination to be methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).
For his defense, Silayan denied the sale. He claimed he was merely buying cigarettes when he was invited for a drink and was subsequently arrested by men in civilian clothes. He alleged he was mauled at the barangay hall. His testimony was corroborated by his companions and a cousin.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Silayan’s conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that all elements of illegal sale of shabu were proven: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the illicit drug and the payment. PO1 Bilog positively identified Silayan as the seller, and the marked money and confiscated sachet were presented in court. The detailed testimony of the police officer on the transaction was accorded credibility.
The Court rejected Silayan’s arguments regarding procedural lapses in the chain of custody. It ruled that the police officers substantially complied with Section 21 of RA 9165. The marking of the seized item was done immediately at the place of arrest. While the inventory and photography were done at the police station, the law allows this when practicable. The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug were preserved, as shown by an unbroken chain of custody from seizure to forensic examination to presentation in court. The defense of denial and frame-up, being inherently weak, could not prevail over the positive identification by the police officers, absent clear evidence of ill motive. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty stands.