G.R. No. 238522. October 01, 2018.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. NORMAN BARADI Y VELASCO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

This case stemmed from a buy-bust operation conducted by the City Anti Illegal Drug-Special Operation Task Group (CAID-SOTG) of San Fernando City, La Union, on July 11, 2014. Accused-appellant Norman Baradi y Velasco was arrested after allegedly selling a plastic sachet containing 0.5890 gram of shabu to a poseur-buyer, SPO1 Gilbert Andulay. Upon his arrest, another sachet containing 0.0245 gram of shabu was recovered from him. The apprehending officers conducted the marking, inventory, and photography of the seized items at the place of arrest in the presence of a barangay official, a Department of Justice (DOJ) representative, and a media representative. The seized items were then taken to the crime laboratory, where they tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Baradi denied the charges, claiming he was framed. He testified that he was at Long Beach Resort to meet someone when individuals attempted to open his car door, and a police officer blocked his vehicle. He was taken to the police station, where he and his car were searched, and nothing was found. He asserted that the required witnesses arrived only after he had already been framed, rendering any interaction with them futile. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty of violations of Sections 5 (Illegal Sale) and 11 (Illegal Possession) of Republic Act No. 9165, a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Baradi’s conviction for violations of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, despite alleged non-compliance with the chain of custody rule and the defense of frame-up.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that all elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs were proven beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution established the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery in the sale. For possession, it was shown that Baradi was in conscious possession of a prohibited drug without legal authority. The defense of denial and frame-up, being inherently weak, could not prevail over the positive testimonies of the police officers, whose credibility was assessed favorably by the trial court.
Crucially, the Court ruled that the chain of custody over the seized drugs was sufficiently established, preserving their integrity and evidentiary value. The marking, inventory, and photography were conducted immediately after seizure at the place of arrest in the presence of the accused and the required witnesses: a barangay official, a DOJ representative, and a media representative. This constituted compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 prior to its amendment by RA 10640. The law was faithfully observed, as the presence of the three required witnesses ensured the integrity of the process from seizure to presentation in court. Thus, the corpus delicti was proven with moral certainty, warranting the affirmance of the judgment.