G.R. No. 233833 February 20, 2019
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. Romulo Arago, Jr. y Como, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

Accused-appellant Romulo Arago, Jr. was convicted for violating Section 5 (Sale of Dangerous Drugs) of Republic Act No. 9165. The prosecution evidence established that on November 24, 2011, a police team conducted a buy-bust operation in Batangas City based on information from an asset. Appellant, alias “Danica,” arrived on a motorcycle and handed a pink coin purse containing a plastic sachet of suspected shabu to the asset, uttering, “Yan, pitong Zibo yan.” He was immediately arrested. The police officers marked the seized item at the scene, conducted an inventory at a barangay outpost in the presence of required witnesses, and brought the specimen to the crime laboratory, where it tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Appellant, together with his companion Kerby De Chavez, pleaded not guilty. The RTC granted De Chavez’s demurrer to evidence but denied appellant’s. Appellant testified that he and De Chavez were merely waiting for a friend when masked men arrested them, claiming they were framed for failing to provide information about a certain “Doktora.” The RTC convicted appellant, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

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.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that all elements of illegal sale were proven: the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery. The buy-bust operation was legitimate, and the police complied with the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of RA 9165. The marking was done immediately at the place of arrest. While the inventory and photography were conducted at the barangay outpost and not at the precise arrest location, the Court ruled this was justified. The apprehending team had legitimate safety and security concerns, as the arrest occurred near a village gate at night, and proceeding to the nearby outpost ensured the integrity of the operation and the safety of the witnesses. The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug were preserved, as the chain of custody from seizure to laboratory examination remained unbroken. Appellant’s defenses of denial and frame-up, unsupported by strong evidence, could not prevail over the positive identification and testimonies of the police officers, who were presumed to have performed their duties regularly. The penalty imposed was in accordance with law.