G.R. No. 242407 April 1, 2019
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. William Piñero alias Jun Jun Generalao @ “Talep”, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

This case stemmed from two Informations accusing William Piñero of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of dangerous drugs. The prosecution alleged that based on a tip, police officers conducted a buy-bust operation in Barangay Cadawinonan, Dumaguete City on February 9, 2015. Piñero sold a sachet of suspected shabu to a poseur-buyer, leading to his arrest. A subsequent search yielded fourteen more sachets from his possession. The seized items were marked, inventoried, and photographed at the place of apprehension in the presence of a barangay kagawad, a DOJ representative, and a media representative. Forensic examination confirmed the substances were methamphetamine hydrochloride.
In his defense, Piñero denied the charges, claiming he was merely waiting for his siblings when he was forcibly taken by men who later presented the drugs. He alleged he was framed and had never sold or possessed any illegal drugs. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Piñero’s conviction for violations of Sections 5 and 11, 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 and illegal possession of dangerous drugs were proven. Piñero was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu to a poseur-buyer during a legitimate buy-bust operation, and more sachets were found in his possession during a search incidental to a lawful arrest. The Court found no reason to deviate from the factual findings of the lower courts, which are accorded great weight and respect.
Crucially, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved through an unbroken chain of custody. The apprehending team complied with the procedure under Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended. The marking, inventory, and photography were conducted immediately after arrest at the place of apprehension in the presence of the required witnesses: an elected public official, a representative from the Department of Justice, and a media representative. This compliance ensured the identity of the corpus delicti. Piñero’s defenses of denial and frame-up, unsupported by clear and convincing evidence, cannot prevail over the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses and the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by the police officers.