G.R. No. 232619 . August 29, 2018.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOMAR QUILANG Y BANGAYAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

This case stemmed from a buy-bust operation conducted by PDEA Region 2 operatives against accused-appellant Jomar Quilang on March 28, 2011. The prosecution alleged that at around 12:30 p.m., Quilang sold a plastic sachet containing 0.06 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) to a poseur-buyer. The seized item was then brought to the PDEA Region 2 Office where it was marked, photographed, and inventoried in the presence of a barangay captain, a DOJ representative, and a media representative. Subsequent laboratory examination confirmed the substance to be shabu.
In his defense, Quilang denied the charges, claiming he was watching television at his grandmother’s house when armed men, identifying themselves as PDEA agents, forcibly arrested him. He alleged they took money and a cellphone from him and that he only saw the alleged drug sachet for the first time at the police station. The Regional Trial Court found Quilang guilty of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Quilang’s conviction despite an alleged breach in the chain of custody rule, particularly the failure to immediately mark the seized item at the place of arrest.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that all elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5 of RA 9165 were proven: the identities of the buyer and seller, the object of the sale, the consideration, and the delivery and payment. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is accorded great respect. On the chain of custody, the Court ruled that the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were preserved. While Section 21 of RA 9165 requires marking, inventory, and photography immediately after seizure, the Implementing Rules and Regulations (and later RA 10640) allow these to be conducted at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team, whichever is practicable, in warrantless seizures like buy-bust operations. Jurisprudence explicitly states that marking at the nearest police station or office constitutes sufficient compliance. Here, the PDEA operatives conducted the marking, inventory, and photography at their regional office in the presence of the required witnesses. This procedure did not break the chain of custody. Quilang’s defense of denial cannot prevail over the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses. Thus, his guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.