G.R. No. L-27136 - Heirs of Arches vs. Vda. de Diaz

Accused-appellant Juan Asislo y Matio, along with co-accused Jose Astudillo and Samuel Pal-iwen, was charged with the illegal sale of marijuana, a violation of Section 5 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The charge stemmed from an alleged transaction on May 13, 2008, during which the accused were purported to have delivered 110 kilograms of marijuana packaged in ninety-one bricks and two tube types of marijuana leaves to undercover agents of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA).

In the second week of April 2008, the PDEA-Cordillera Administrative Region (PDEA-CAR) Office received intelligence from PDEA-La Union regarding the proliferation and distribution of marijuana in La Union, implicating Juan Asislo.
PCI Apalla, the Regional Director, directed IA1 Ferdinand Natividad to coordinate with the informant and build a case against Asislo.

The informant, known as “Jojo,” was instructed by Natividad to keep close tabs on Asislo’s activities and report any developments.
Jojo reported multiple meetings with Asislo, including negotiations about a potential sale priced at P1,500.00 per kilo and arrangements concerning a buyer from Manila.

On May 2, 2008, negotiations took place via phone where Asislo indicated that he had approximately 100 kilos available and later revised the volume to 110 kilograms for delivery on May 13, 2008.
PDEA agents, led by PCI Apalla and coordinated by IA1 Natividad, organized an entrapment operation involving a poseur-buyer and a backup team.
The agreed lugar of transaction was specified as an area near a car wash in Dontogan, Green Valley, Baguio City, with the operation set to occur between 7:00 and 8:00 in the morning.

On the morning of May 13, 2008, the entrapment team intercepted a dark blue Kia Besta van owned or leased by Asislo.
At approximately 7:30 AM, two individuals (one identified as Jojo and the other as Asislo) approached the poseur-buyer, Natividad, to present the drugs.
Upon inspection, Natividad was shown five sacks and a plastic bag containing marijuana. A pre-arranged signal (removal of a ball cap) indicated the culmination of this illicit transaction.

After the signal, Natividad identified himself as a PDEA agent, and the backup team immediately arrested the accused.
The seized marijuana was transported to the PDEA-CAR Field Office for proper marking and documentation, then forwarded to the PNP Crime Laboratory for chemical analysis.
Despite a lapse in immediate marking in the presence of the accused, the drugs were later inventoried, photographed, and marked with identification details (e.g., “Exhibit A,” initials “FTN,” signature, and the date “5-13-08”).

The prosecution established that there was an unlawful arrangement between Natividad (acting as a poseur-buyer) and Asislo to facilitate the delivery and transportation of marijuana.
Evidence showed that the delivery was meticulously planned with a designated place and time, and the actual act of transporting the drugs was performed by Asislo using a leased vehicle.
The integrity of the chain of custody was verified through inventory records, marked items, and the subsequent positive chemical analysis of the marijuana.

Astudillo’s account claimed that the operation was related to a vehicle rental arrangement for the transportation of brooms and bananas, not for drug delivery.
However, this version was contradicted by evidence and statements indicating that the accused was involved in a drug delivery operation.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Asislo for illegal sale of marijuana, imposing life imprisonment and a fine of P5,000,000.00, while acquitting the other accused for insufficiency of evidence and lack of conspiracy.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision, though it reduced the fine to P1,000,000.00, by ruling that the chain of custody lapses did not undermine the evidentiary value of the seized drugs.

Whether the lapse in immediately marking and inventorying the seized drugs in the presence of the accused compromised the chain of custody.
Whether the procedures mandated under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR for evidentiary preservation were sufficiently complied with.

Whether the absence of actual monetary exchange (i.e., non-appearance of “buy-bust money”) negated the consummation of the sale.
Whether the act of delivering and transporting the drugs, despite the absence of payment, fulfilled the elements required for the crime under Article II, Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165.

Whether the admission of evidence despite procedural lapses in marking and inventorying still maintained its integrity for establishing the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the fact that the physical evidence (seized marijuana) was eventually properly documented, marked, and tested, sufficed to confirm an unbroken chain of custody.