G.R. No. 246577 , July 13, 2020
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Siu Ming Tat and Lee Yoong Hoew, Accused-Appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Siu Ming Tat and Lee Yoong Hoew were charged with violation of Section 5 (illegal sale) in relation to Section 26(b) (conspiracy), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). The Information alleged that on July 26, 2012, in Manila, they conspired to sell and deliver to PO3 Ernesto Mabanglo a plastic bag containing 426.30 grams of white crystalline substance which tested positive for ephedrine, a dangerous drug. During arraignment, both pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution’s version, based on the testimony of PO3 Mabanglo, was that a buy-bust operation was planned after a confidential informant arranged a drug deal. PO3 Mabanglo acted as the poseur-buyer. The transaction occurred in a hotel room where Tat presented the drugs and Lee received the marked money. Upon consummation, the arrest signal was given, and appellants were apprehended. An inventory of the seized items was conducted at the scene in the presence of an assistant city prosecutor, a barangay chairman, and a media representative. The seized substance was marked, subjected to laboratory examination, and tested positive for ephedrine.
The defense presented a different version. Appellants claimed they were tourists who had just arrived from Hong Kong. They alleged that police officers forcibly entered their hotel room, handcuffed them, planted evidence, and staged the arrest. They denied any involvement in a drug transaction.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced each to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision. Appellants elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of accused-appellants for illegal sale of dangerous drugs despite alleged irregularities in the buy-bust operation and the chain of custody of the seized item.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the CA Decision. The Court found the appeal to be without merit.
The Court held that the prosecution successfully established all elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly PO3 Mabanglo, were credible and consistent. The defense of denial and frame-up was inherently weak and could not prevail over the positive identification by the police officers.
Regarding the chain of custody, the Court ruled that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item were preserved. The marking, physical inventory, and photography were conducted immediately at the place of arrest in the presence of the accused and the required witnesses (a representative from the Department of Justice, an elected public official, and a media representative). While the defense argued that the inventory was signed on a pre-filled form, the Court found this did not break the chain of custody, as the witnesses were present during the inventory and the seized items were in their plain view. Minor procedural lapses, if any, did not negate the established fact of the sale.
Finally, the Court addressed a variance between the crime charged and the crime proved. The Information alleged a violation for selling “ephedrine,” which is listed as a dangerous drug under the law. The evidence and lower courts’ decisions referred to the substance as “shabu” (methamphetamine hydrochloride). The Court held that this was a minor variance that did not prejudice the accused or alter the nature of the offense. An offense charged necessarily includes lesser offenses proved, and the right to be informed of the charges was not violated.
Accused-appellants were found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 . The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 each was imposed.