G.R. No. 246477 , October 02, 2019
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arsenio Salmeron y Amaro and Ma. Lourdes Estrada y Cruz, Accused-Appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Arsenio Salmeron and Ma. Lourdes Estrada were charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution evidence established that on November 19, 2013, a buy-bust operation was conducted in Quezon City based on information from a confidential informant. PO3 Rolando Alieger Jr. acted as the poseur-buyer and transacted with the appellants, resulting in Ma. Lourdes handing over a plastic sachet containing suspected shabu to PO3 Alieger in exchange for marked money. Upon consummation of the sale, the appellants were arrested. The seized item was marked at the scene by PO3 Alieger. Due to a growing hostile crowd, the team proceeded to the barangay hall where an inventory was conducted and photographs were taken in the presence of the appellants and the Barangay Captain. The item was then submitted to the crime laboratory, where it tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The defense claimed they were victims of a frame-up and a “palit-ulo” scheme, alleging that police officers barged into their home, found nothing, but later planted evidence.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellants’ conviction for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, particularly concerning compliance with the chain of custody rule and Section 21 requirements on inventory and witnessing.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. It ruled that all links in the chain of custody were duly established: (1) PO3 Alieger seized and marked the item immediately after the buy-bust; (2) the item was turned over to PO3 Nilo Duazo for inventory; (3) PO3 Duazo submitted the item to the forensic chemist for examination; and (4) the forensic chemist presented the item in court. While representatives from the Department of Justice and the media were not present during the inventory, the prosecution successfully demonstrated that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug were preserved. The presence of the Barangay Captain constituted substantial compliance. The positive testimony of the police officer prevailed over the appellants’ defenses of denial and frame-up, which were not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties stood. Thus, the guilt of the appellants for illegal sale of dangerous drugs was proven beyond reasonable doubt.