G.R. No. 229680, June 6, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MICHAEL GOYENA Y ABRAHAM, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

On November 28, 2012, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) in Legazpi City received information from a confidential informant (CI) that accused-appellant Michael Goyena y Abraham and his sister, Cyramil Goyena, were engaged in selling dangerous drugs. A buy-bust operation was planned after the CI confirmed that Cyramil was on PDEA’s watchlist. During a pre-operational briefing, PDEA Agent Jonathan Ivan Revilla was designated as the poseur-buyer, with PO2 Jose Caspe as backup. The CI contacted Cyramil to arrange a purchase of ₱3,500 worth of shabu, but Cyramil informed the CI that appellant would deliver the drugs instead.
At around 2:00 p.m., the buy-bust team proceeded to the target area in Cabangan, Legazpi City. Agent Revilla and the CI waited along the road, while other team members positioned themselves nearby. Appellant approached them, confirmed the purchase, and handed Agent Revilla one medium-sized heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. In exchange, Agent Revilla gave appellant the marked ₱500 bill and boodle money. After the exchange, Agent Revilla gave the pre-arranged signal (turning his baseball cap), and PO2 Caspe arrested appellant, who initially resisted but was subdued. Agent Revilla immediately marked the seized sachet with his initials “JIR-11/28/12” at the scene. Due to a brewing commotion, the team returned to the police station.
At the station, PO2 Caspe conducted a body search on appellant, recovering a black pouch containing the marked money, a cellular phone, a lighter, and a .22 caliber bullet. These items were marked with PO2 Caspe’s initials. An inventory of the seized items was conducted in the presence of appellant, Barangay Captain Santos Perez, Barangay Kagawad Richard Diaz, media representative Darlan Barcelon, and Department of Justice representative Jesus Arsenio Aragon, with photographs taken as documentation. Agent Revilla retained custody of the seized sachet and personally delivered it to the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory for examination. Forensic chemist P/SI Wilfredo Pabustan Jr. confirmed that the substance tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) weighing 0.301 gram.
Appellant denied the charges, claiming he was playing “cara y cruz” (a gambling game) when about ten men accosted him. He alleged that the arresting officers planted evidence by inserting a black pouch into his pocket, from which they retrieved the marked money and a plastic sachet. He insisted he was arrested for illegal gambling, not drug-related activities.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Legazpi City, Branch 4, found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). The RTC sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of ₱1,000,000. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision, prompting appellant to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant’s conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, despite alleged irregularities in the chain of custody of the seized drugs and non-compliance with the procedural requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the appeal and AFFIRMED the conviction. The Court held that all elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were proven beyond reasonable doubt, and the chain of custody over the seized drugs was properly established, ensuring the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti.
1. Elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs: The prosecution successfully proved (a) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the drugs and payment. Agent Revilla’s testimony detailed the buy-bust operation, including the exchange of the marked money for the plastic sachet containing shabu. The forensic report confirmed the substance was methamphetamine hydrochloride.
2. Chain of Custody: Appellant argued that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody due to the absence of elected public officials during the inventory at the arrest scene. The Court emphasized that strict compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 is not always required, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. Here, the buy-bust team marked the seized sachet immediately at the scene. The inventory and photography at the police station were conducted in the presence of appellant, a barangay captain, a barangay kagawad, a media representative, and a DOJ representative, substantially complying with the law. Minor procedural lapses (e.g., conducting inventory at the station due to commotion) did not undermine the integrity of the evidence.
3. Presumption of Regularity: The Court upheld the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the PDEA agents, as appellant failed to present clear evidence of ill motive or tampering. His claim of frame-up was deemed unsubstantiated and a common defense in drug cases.
4. Penalty: For violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the penalty is life imprisonment and a fine ranging from ₱500,000 to ₱10,000,000. The Court affirmed the RTC’s imposition of life imprisonment and a fine of ₱1,000,000, consistent with RA 9346, which prohibits the death penalty.
The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution established appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the CA correctly affirmed the RTC’s judgment.