G.R. No. 191260 - People vs. Brita

Appellant Melchor D. Brita, alias "Boboy," was charged with violations of Republic Act No. 9165, specifically for the sale and illegal possession of shabu.
On October 24, 2002, two separate Informations were filed against the appellant before the RTC of Pasig City: one for selling 0.19 gram of shabu and another for illegal possession of 1.56 grams of shabu.
The cases were raffled to RTC-Pasig, Branch 165, where appellant, after his arraignment on February 11, 2003, pleaded not guilty to both charges.
Appellant sought bail through a petition; during the bail hearing, the prosecution presented testimonies by PO2 Archibald Tejero and PO3 Edgar Orias.
Eventually, after evidentiary and procedural developments, the case was transferred (re-raffled) to RTC-Taguig, Branch 70, where a full trial was conducted.
RTC-Taguig, Branch 70, found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 and sentenced him to life imprisonment along with a fine of P500,000.00.
The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision on November 18, 2009, which eventually led to the present appeal.

On the afternoon of October 23, 2002, a confidential informant tipped off the police about appellant’s engagement in drug selling in Western Bicutan, Taguig.
Acting on the information, Police Inspector Eduardo Paningbatan of the Drug Enforcement Unit assembled a buy-bust team.
PO2 Tejero was designated as the poseur-buyer and was given P500.00 as marked buy-bust money.
At about 4:30 p.m., the team proceeded to appellant’s house where, upon being summoned and approached by the police, appellant allegedly offered a plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance in exchange for the money.
Following a pre-arranged signal when PO2 Tejero lit a cigarette, PO3 Orias and other officers cordoned the area, leading to appellant’s apprehension as he attempted to retreat inside his house.
After his arrest, PO2 Tejero recovered the buy-bust money and marked the sachet as “MDB-1.”
During the search, PO3 Orias also found two additional plastic sachets, which were subsequently marked “MDB-2” and “MDB-3.”
The seized parts were transferred to Taguig Police Station, and later, the implicated white crystalline substance underwent laboratory examination, testing positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).

In support of his Petition for Bail, appellant presented testimonies of Maygene Fernandez (relative) and Olivia Duhaylongsod (neighbor), who contended:

No buy-bust operation had actually taken place.
Appellant was asleep at the time, and upon seeing police, he requested a search warrant.
No frisking occurred, and there was no visual evidence of any drug sachet.

Appellant also maintained that he was the victim of a frame-up and argued that inconsistencies in the police officers’ testimonies raised doubts about their credibility.
He further claimed that the grant of bail signified that the evidence against him was not strong, and he raised concerns about potential lapses in the chain of custody of the seized items, citing non-compliance with the procedural requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165.

The buy-bust money and the sachets were handled, marked, and documented by the police officers immediately after the arrest.
The chain of custody involved various personnel:

PO2 Tejero executed the marking of the seized items.
Police Inspector Eduardo Paningbatan received and turned the items over to the evidence custodian.
The specimen was later forwarded to the PNP Crime Laboratory where it was tested and identified as shabu.

The chain of custody was later described in detail, including the steps from the scene of the transaction to its presentation in court.

Whether the direct testimonies of PO2 Tejero and PO3 Orias, as primary eyewitnesses and law enforcement officers, established beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime.
Whether the alleged inconsistencies in the minor details of the testimonies affected their overall credibility regarding the central facts of the transaction.

Whether the chain of custody of the seized drug specimen was maintained properly despite procedural gaps such as the lack of a required physical inventory and photograph as mandated by Section 21 of RA 9165.
Whether the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were compromised by these alleged lapses.

Whether the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by the police officers can override the presumption of innocence in view of appellant’s denial and claim of frame-up.
Whether the grant of bail, as argued by appellant, serves as an indicator of insufficient evidence against him.

Whether the appellant provided clear and convincing evidence to substantiate his claim of frame-up.
Whether the denial and the alternative narrative provided by the defense meet the threshold to rebut the presumption of regularity.