G.R. No. 237423 , October 12, 2020
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. NEIL DEJOS Y PINILI, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Neil Dejos y Pinili was charged with Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution alleged that during a buy-bust operation on July 17, 2012, in Dumaguete City, operatives recovered seven plastic sachets containing 31.75 grams of shabu from him. Following the arrest, a call from a certain May Flor led to a separate entrapment. The inventory and photography of the seized items from both operations were later conducted at the NBI office in the presence of the accused, a barangay official, a DOJ representative, and a media representative.
The defense presented a denial and frame-up, claiming he was merely assaulted by men who later turned out to be police officers without being informed of any violation. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the evidence for illegal sale insufficient but convicted him instead for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11 of RA 9165, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed this conviction.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed accused-appellant’s conviction for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic centers on the sufficiency of evidence establishing the elements of illegal possession and the integrity of the seized drugs. For illegal possession, the prosecution must prove: (1) the accused was in possession of a dangerous drug; (2) such possession was not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. Here, the testimony of PO1 Berdejo that accused-appellant handed over the seven sachets was credible and established possession. The defense’s bare denial could not overcome this positive testimony.
Regarding the chain of custody, the Court ruled it was properly preserved. The conduct of a joint inventory at the NBI office, with the required witnesses present, was justified under the law given the operational circumstances and lack of adequate lighting at the arrest sites. The seized items were marked, inventoried, photographed, and subjected to laboratory examination, which confirmed the substance as shabu. The integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were thus maintained. Consequently, the penalty of life imprisonment and a P400,000.00 fine for possession of 31.75 grams of shabu is appropriate under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165.