G.R. No. 243589 , September 09, 2019
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Andidato Mamarinta and Jack Batuan, Accused-Appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Andidato P. Mamarinta and Jack A. Batuan were charged with violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). The charges stemmed from a buy-bust operation conducted on July 19, 2015, in Pasig City. Based on information from a confidential informant, a police team was formed with PO1 Rodrigo J. Nidoy, Jr. as poseur-buyer and PO1 Jonathan B. Bueno as back-up. The team coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. During the operation, the informant and PO1 Nidoy, Jr. approached accused-appellants, who were standing in front of a house. After being informed that the target “Gerald” was not around, Mamarinta asked how much shabu they wanted to buy. PO1 Nidoy, Jr. replied “dos lang” and handed over marked money to Batuan. Mamarinta then produced four plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance and gave one to PO1 Nidoy, Jr. Upon the pre-arranged signal, the officers arrested the accused. From Mamarinta, three additional sachets were confiscated. From Batuan, the buy-bust money and one sachet were confiscated. The officers marked the seized items at the place of arrest in the presence of the accused and Barangay Kagawad Chester Guevarra, who signed the inventory. Photographs were taken. The items were later turned over to the investigating officer and then to the crime laboratory, where forensic chemist PSI Anghelisa S. Vicente found them positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Accused-appellants denied the charges, claiming they were arbitrarily arrested and that the police demanded money for their release.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of accused-appellants for violations of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 , despite alleged irregularities in the chain of custody of the seized drugs.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the convictions. The Court held that all elements of the crimes were proven beyond reasonable doubt. For the illegal sale (Section 5), the prosecution established the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery of the drugs. For illegal possession (Section 11), the prosecution proved the accused were in possession of the drugs without legal authority. The Court ruled that the chain of custody was substantially complied with. The marking, physical inventory, and photographing were done immediately at the place of arrest in the presence of the accused and a barangay official. The absence of a media representative was justified by the police, who explained that none arrived due to the early hour of the operation (2:20 a.m.). The requirement for a representative from the National Prosecution Service was not applicable as the operation occurred before the effectivity of the amendatory law (R.A. 10640). The forensic chemist’s non-presentation did not break the chain, as her testimony was dispensed with by stipulation of the parties. The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. The defenses of denial and frame-up were rejected for being unsupported by clear and convincing evidence. The penalties imposed by the Regional Trial Court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, were sustained.