G.R. No. 243986 , January 22, 2020
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. R. Lorenz Esguerra y Baliber a.k.a. “RR,” Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

This case stemmed from an Amended Information charging accused-appellant R. Lorenz Esguerra and two others with Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution alleged that on March 18, 2010, a PDEA team led by IO1 Myrian Aceron Balbada conducted a buy-bust operation at accused-appellant’s residence in Butuan City, during which a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance was recovered from him. After arrest, IO1 Balbada marked, inventoried, and photographed the seized item at the place of arrest in the presence of accused-appellant, Barangay Captain Victor L. Abucejo (an elected public official), DOJ representative Ronaldo T. Bedrijo, and media representatives Tootsie Licup and Rey M. Brangan. The item was brought to the crime laboratory, where examination confirmed it contained 0.0440 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). Accused-appellant denied the charge, claiming he was asleep when men barged in, searched, and arrested him without cause. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC Decision. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming accused-appellant’s conviction for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, specifically concerning the preservation of the identity and integrity of the seized drug through compliance with the chain of custody rule under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the appeal and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals Decision. The Court held that all elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs were proven beyond reasonable doubt, as accused-appellant was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu to a poseur-buyer during a legitimate buy-bust operation. The Court further ruled that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug were properly preserved. The PDEA team complied with the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of RA 9165 (prior to its amendment by RA 10640). The marking, inventory, and photography were conducted immediately after seizure at the place of arrest in the presence of accused-appellant and the required witnesses: an elected public official (Barangay Captain), a DOJ representative, and media representatives. The drug was then delivered to the crime laboratory for examination and later presented in court. Thus, the chain of custody remained unbroken, and the corpus delicti was established with moral certainty. Accused-appellant’s conviction stands.