G.R. No. 230717 . June 20, 2018.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. LULU BATTUNG Y NARMAR, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

The prosecution’s evidence established that a buy-bust operation was conducted against appellant Lulu Battung based on a confidential informant’s tip. PO1 Conrado Juaño acted as the poseur-buyer and met with appellant along Bambang Street, Tondo, Manila. Appellant asked how much he was buying, and upon PO1 Juaño’s reply of “dos lang,” she received two marked P100 bills and handed over a plastic sachet of white crystalline substance. She was then arrested. The seized item was marked by PO1 Juaño at the police station and later confirmed by forensic examination to be 0.022 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
The appellant presented a different version, claiming she was forcibly taken from her home by armed men while conversing with a neighbor. She alleged she was detained and asked for money in exchange for her release. Her testimony was corroborated by the neighbor’s son and a barangay tanod, who stated they witnessed her being dragged into a vehicle. She admitted to a prior arrest for drug possession but was out on bail at the time.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant’s conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 .

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 identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. The testimonies of the police officers, who were presumed to have performed their duties regularly, clearly established the consummated sale. The defense of denial and frame-up, being inherently weak, could not prevail over the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses.
Crucially, the Court ruled that while there was a deviation from the strict chain of custody procedure under Section 21 of RA 9165—specifically, the failure to immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized item in the presence of the accused or her representatives—such lapse did not automatically void the seizure. The law requires the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs, which was satisfied here. The marking of the item by the poseur-buyer at the police station, its unbroken transfer to the investigator and then to the forensic chemist, and the consistent identification in court constituted an unbroken chain that proved the corpus delicti’s identity and integrity beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution adequately explained the procedural lapse, and the defense failed to present evidence of bad faith, tampering, or ill motive on the part of the apprehending officers.