G.R. No. L-4026 - People vs. Dulay

Accused-appellant Ferdinand Buniag y Mercadera was charged with violating Section 5, Paragraph 1 in relation to Section 26, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).
The charge stemmed from an alleged incident on August 9, 2008, involving the sale and/or delivery of dangerous drugs (marijuana) during a buy-bust operation in Cagayan de Oro City.

The information alleges that Buniag unlawfully sold, offered for sale, gave away, and delivered a black and red travelling bag containing three bundles of marijuana fruiting tops.
The bundles were described with specific markings (NVP-1, NVP-2, and NVP-3) and corresponding net weights, establishing the tangible corpus purportedly used to prove the crime.
The charge was framed as a violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, emphasizing an unauthorized transaction involving dangerous drugs.

On August 9, 2008, PDEA Agent IO1 Rubylyn S. Alfaro, accompanied by her confidential informant (CI), arranged a deal with Buniag to purchase marijuana.
A preliminary meeting took place where it was agreed that Alfaro would act as the poseur-buyer while IO2 Neil Vincent Pimentel would serve as a backup and arresting officer.

The buy-bust team, comprising several police personnel, proceeded to the designated location along Olape Street, Zone 2 Bayabas, Cagayan de Oro City.
Buniag arrived carrying a black travelling bag, which he presented after a brief interaction with IO1 Alfaro.
Alfaro inspected the bag and signaled the team (via a “missed call” to IO2 Pimentel), prompting the officers to close in and arrest the accused.

Following the arrest, the officers took possession of the black travelling bag and its three bundles of marijuana.
At the police station, the items were marked (with identifiers “NVP” for the bag and “NVP 1” to “NVP 3” for the bundles), photographed, and inventoried.
The procedure, however, deviated from the prescribed requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165, as the immediate marking and inventory at the scene were not performed.

Buniag contended that he was in Cagayan de Oro City merely for personal errands and family matters, having no inclination or knowledge about the sale or possession of dangerous drugs.
He denied ownership of the black travelling bag and the marijuana bundles, asserting that he was framed.
During arrest and subsequent processing, he alleged coercion and procedural irregularities, including the signing of documents without knowledge of their contents and extortion attempts regarding a demand for money by police personnel.

At the arraignment, Buniag pleaded not guilty to the charges leveled against him.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 40, Misamis Oriental, found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt for an offense related to the attempted sale and delivery of dangerous drugs, sentencing him to life imprisonment, a fine of P500,000.00, and ordering the forfeiture of the marijuana bundles.
The Court of Appeals (CA) later modified the conviction, finding Buniag guilty under Section 26(b), Article II of RA 9165, while upholding the chain of custody evidence despite observed procedural lapses.

Significant deviations from the mandatory inventory and chain of custody protocols under Section 21 of RA 9165 were identified:

The marking, photography, and inventory of the seized items were not conducted immediately at the scene but only later at the police station.
Required witnesses, such as an elected public official, a representative from the Department of Justice, and mandatory media personnel, were either absent or only peripherally involved during the inventory process.

These deviations called into question the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti, which is essential in sustaining a conviction for drug-related offenses.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of Buniag for violating Section 26(b), Article II of RA 9165 despite significant procedural lapses.
Whether the established chain of custody, particularly the failure to comply with the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165 (marking, photography, and inventory at the scene with the requisite witnesses), was sufficient to prove the existence and integrity of the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the procedural irregularities in the conduct of the buy-bust operation (including the absence of mandatory witnesses and the deferred inventory process) compromised the validity of the evidence against the accused.