G.R. No. 227356 - People vs. Bolado y Naval

Appellant Marvin Bolado y Naval was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 for the alleged illegal sale of a dangerous drug, commonly known as "shabu."
The offense was charged to have occurred on July 5, 2012, in the Municipality of Binangonan, Province of Rizal.
The charge specified that the appellant sold, delivered, and gave away 0.06 gram of white crystalline substance, later confirmed to be methamphetamine hydrochloride, in exchange for Php 300.00.

A confidential informant reported that an individual under the alias “Barok” was selling illegal drugs in Brgy. Pag-asa, Binangonan.
PO2 Jeffray Mejalla, along with PO1 Jaefran Bernardino and the confidential informant, conducted a surveillance near the Family Lodge Hotel along Binangonan highway.

The authorities observed multiple individuals engaging in covert exchanges that concealed an illegal drug transaction.
The buy-bust team, involving designated roles (poseur buyer, team leader, and members), returned to the scene with pre-marked money prepared for the operation.
Upon confrontation, appellant produced a plastic sachet containing the white crystalline substance and received the buy-bust money in return.
PO2 Mejalla signaled the consummation of the transaction and subsequently arrested the appellant, recovering both the buy-bust money and the drug evidence.

Immediately after seizure, the apprehending officer marked the plastic sachet.
An inventory was prepared in the presence of a media representative (Tata Rey Abella) at the area of arrest and later at the police station where photographs were taken.
The specimen was forwarded to the Rizal Provincial Crime Laboratory, where Forensic Chemist Beaune Villaraza conducted tests and confirmed the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

Photocopies of the police blotter, pre-operation report, booking sheet, arrest report, laboratory requests and examination results.
Documentary evidence including photographs of the appellant, the seized sachet, buy-bust money, an inventory of evidence, and the sinumpaang salaysay of the arresting officers.
Forensic chemistry report (Chemistry Report No. D-310-12) confirmed the substance tested positive for the dangerous drug.

Appellant, along with co-testimonies by Joven Carminada and Ding Rommel Martinez, asserted that on the morning of July 5, 2012, appellant was engaged in activities unrelated to drug transactions.
The defense contended that appellant assisted in repairing a front gate and borrowed a motorcycle, later encountering an accident involving PO1 Mike Salazar.

It was testified that the alleged accident resulted in appellant being detained in the police station, thereby precluding his involvement in any drug sale at the time indicated by the prosecution.
Appellant’s testimony and the timeline provided by the defense served as an attempt to refute the prosecution’s sequence of events.

The trial court rendered a verdict of conviction, relying on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who were police officers performing their official duties.
The court emphasized the proper observation of the chain of custody in preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug.
The court rejected appellant’s denial and alibi, giving full credit to the law enforcement’s account.

Appellant challenged the conviction on the ground of procedural lapses during the buy-bust operation, particularly the deficiencies in complying with the chain of custody.
Specific alleged omissions included: non-testimony of the confidential informant; absence of the original buy-bust money in evidence; discrepancies in the location of the physical inventory versus the photographic documentation; and the limited presence of witnesses during inventory.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) countered, arguing substantial compliance with the chain of custody and validating the methods used during the operation.

Central to the case was whether the chain of custody rule as mandated under Section 21 of RA 9165 was complied with.
The issue focused on whether the procedural lapses—specifically, the deviation from having a Department of Justice representative and an elected public official present during the inventory and photographing of the seized drug—compromised the evidentiary integrity.
The failure to explain the procedural deviations by the buy-bust team was highlighted as a breach that tainted the integrity of the evidence and the corpus delicti of the case.

Whether the chain of custody rule, as required under Section 21 of RA 9165 and its implementing rules, was fully complied with during the seizure and handling of the dangerous drug.
Whether the failure to have all required participants (specifically, the presence of a DOJ representative and an elected public official) during the physical inventory and photographic documentation compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug.
Whether the defense’s assertion of an alibi, based on an alleged accident and detention subsequent to that accident, sufficiently raised reasonable doubt regarding the commission of the crime.
Whether the warrantless arrest and subsequent procedures were valid as incident to a bona fide buy-bust operation in flagrante delicto.