G.R. No. 204014 - Philippine Stock Exchange, Inc. vs. Litonjua

The case involves accused-appellant Edgar Bolo y Franco charged with two separate offenses—illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu—both anchored on a single incident on April 1, 2006 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila.
Two criminal cases were raffled separately: Criminal Case No. C-74987 (illegal sale) assigned to RTC Branch 123 and Criminal Case No. C-74988 (illegal possession) assigned to RTC Branch 127, later ordered to be consolidated for a joint trial.

The operation was initiated based on information from a confidential informant that an alias “Gagay” was engaged in illegal drug activities at a specific location in Caloocan City.
A buy-bust team was formed under the supervision of Col. Cuaton of the Caloocan City Police Station, and comprised of officers including PO1 Montefrio, PO3 Valderama, PO3 Modina, PO3 Galvez, PO1 Rosales, and later joined by PO3 Pagsolingan, who acted as backup.
The team coordinated a pre-arranged signal indicating the consummation of the transaction and the subsequent arrest.
PO1 Montefrio was designated as the poseur buyer and was provided with two pre-dusted P100 bills (with ultraviolet powder) to facilitate the transaction.

Upon arrival at the target location at 11th and 12th streets, the informant introduced alias Gagay to PO1 Montefrio.
During the staged transaction, Montefrio indicated his intention to buy shabu by stating “two hundred pesos” and handing over the buy-bust money.
In response, the accused produced a plastic sachet from his pocket which he handed to Montefrio, after which the pre-arranged signal was given.
Subsequent arrests were made on the spot. During the apprehension, PO3 Pagsolingan recovered additional plastic sachets from the accused’s pocket.
The seized items were then transferred to the police station, where PO2 Hipolito marked the evidence (sachets labeled EBF-1 to EBF-4) before delivering them to the forensic chemist, PSI Dela Rosa.
Laboratory examination confirmed the presence of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) in the seized sachets and detected ultraviolet powder on the hands, on the buy-bust money, and on PO1 Montefrio, supporting the occurrence of the buy-bust transaction.

Prosecution witnesses including PO1 Montefrio and PO3 Pagsolingan testified regarding the events, the handling of the evidence, and identification of the accused as the seller.
The forensic reports (Physical Science Report D-167-06 and PSR No. PI-003-06) provided scientific confirmation that the substances recovered were indeed shabu and that the ultraviolet dust was present on the money and relevant persons.
The defense presented an alternative narrative claiming that the accused was merely present at a social gathering prior to being apprehended and alleged that police irregularities (such as a lack of immediate inventory, photographing the seized drugs, and possible contamination of the money) might have compromised the evidence.
Despite these defenses, the RTC found the cumulative evidence overwhelming, particularly noting the proper identification markings on the seized items and the corroborative testimonies of the police officers.

For Criminal Case No. C-74987 (illegal sale), sentencing him to life imprisonment and imposing a fine of P1,000,000.00.
For Criminal Case No. C-74988 (illegal possession), sentencing him to imprisonment ranging from twelve years and one day to thirteen years and eight months and imposing a fine of P300,000.00.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision after reviewing the chain of custody and the witnesses’ consistent testimonies, rejecting the defense’s arguments of procedural fault.
Accused-appellant then elevated his case to the Supreme Court, raising issues regarding non-compliance with certain procedural requirements, particularly those under Section 21, Article II of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165.

Whether the failure of the arresting officers to immediately conduct a physical inventory, photograph the seized drugs in the presence of the required persons, and properly secure the evidence compromised the integrity of the chain of custody.
Whether such non-compliance, as claimed by the accused, rendered the seizure of the drugs invalid and the evidence inadmissible.

Whether the prosecution’s evidence, including the testimony of PO1 Montefrio and other corroborative evidence, sufficiently proved beyond reasonable doubt the occurrence of the buy-bust transaction for the illegal sale of shabu.
Whether the allegations of contamination or improper post-arrest handling of the ultraviolet-dusted money and seized items have any merit in negating the physical evidentiary link between the accused and the drugs.

Whether the identification of the accused by the police officers and the subsequent handling and marking of the evidence are enough to dispel the defense’s assertions of a frame-up or sabotage of evidence.
Whether the accused’s alternative narrative regarding his presence at the scene can undermine the integrity of the prosecution’s chain of custody and the overall evidence of the crime.