G.R. No. 254035 . November 15, 2021.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ERWIN BATINO Y EVANGELISTA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Erwin Batino y Evangelista was charged with one count of illegal sale (Section 5) and two counts of illegal possession (Section 11) of dangerous drugs under Republic Act No. 9165 . The charges stemmed from a buy-bust operation on April 14, 2016, in Bay, Laguna. Based on information from a confidential agent, a buy-bust team was formed with PO1 Julie Moises Bassig as the poseur-buyer. Batino sold one plastic sachet of suspected shabu to PO1 Bassig in exchange for marked money. Upon arrest, a preventive search yielded three more plastic sachets from a metal container in Batino’s pocket. These items were marked at the place of arrest in the presence of a barangay chairman and a media representative. Subsequently, a search warrant was implemented at Batino’s house, resulting in the seizure of eleven more plastic sachets, which were also marked and inventoried. The seized items were turned over to the crime laboratory and tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Batino pleaded not guilty, raising the defenses of denial and frame-up, and questioning the chain of custody and the validity of the search warrant. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Batino for illegal sale (Criminal Case No. 26504-2016-C) and for illegal possession of the three sachets found on his person (Criminal Case No. 26503-2016-C), but acquitted him for illegal possession of the eleven sachets found in his house (Criminal Case No. 26505-2016-C) due to an invalid search warrant. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision in toto.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of accused-appellant for violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 .

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the convictions. The Court held that all elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs were proven beyond reasonable doubt. The buy-bust operation was legitimate, and the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs. While there was non-compliance with the witness requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 , as only a barangay chairman and a media representative were present during the inventory (absent a representative from the Department of Justice), the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were nevertheless preserved. The marking, physical inventory, and photographing were conducted immediately at the place of arrest and seizure in the presence of the accused and the witnesses. The defense of frame-up was rejected for lack of clear and convincing evidence of ill motive on the part of the police officers, who are presumed to have performed their duties regularly. The acquittal for the charge relating to the items seized from the house, due to an invalid search warrant, was not disturbed. Accordingly, the penalties imposed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA were sustained: for illegal sale (Section 5), life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000; for illegal possession (Section 11) of the three sachets, an indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and a fine of P300,000.