G.R. No. 228255 - People vs. Cadiente y Quindo

Appellant Mary Jane Cadiente y Quindo @ Jane was charged with the violation of Section 5 and Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, which pertains to illegal dealings with dangerous drugs (shabu).
The Information alleged that on two separate occasions in July 2014 in Makati City, appellant either sold or had in her direct custody sachets containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride:

In Criminal Case No. 14-1089, she allegedly sold one (1) plastic sachet weighing 0.08 gram for Php500.00.
In Criminal Case No. 14-1090, she allegedly had possession of one (1) sachet weighing 0.14 gram marked “RAG-1.”

A confidential informant reported that appellant and her husband were involved in peddling shabu in Barangay Rizal, Makati.
A buy-bust operation was organized, involving:

Designation of a poseur-buyer (PO2 Rexell Gabelo) who was provided with a marked 500-peso bill.
Coordination with the Southern Police District and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA).

PO2 Gabelo identified the appellant, initiated the transaction by handing over the marked money, and signaled when the transaction was consummated.
Apprehension followed promptly with SPO1 Randy L. Obedoza assisting in the arrest.

Seized items included the marked money, an additional one hundred peso bill, a second sachet of shabu, and a disposable lighter.
The inventory and photographic process was initially planned at Barangay Rizal but later moved to Barangay Pembo due to delays, with the presence of the appellant and a barangay captain as an elected public official.
A forensic chemist later confirmed that the substances in both sachets tested positive for shabu.

Appellant contended that on the night of July 7, 2014, while at home with her husband and daughter, armed men forcefully entered her residence, ransacked the house, and detained her along with her family.
She claimed that she did not resist these invaders out of fear of physical harm.
The armed men took her and her family to the police station where they were held for two days without food, and her husband was later extorted for ₱50,000.00 for her release.
Appellant maintained that false charges were subsequently filed against her after these events.

During trial proceedings, appellant pleaded not guilty to both offenses.
On December 10, 2014, the RTC rendered a decision finding her guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 (illegal sale of shabu).
The RTC, however, held there was reasonable doubt on the charge under Section 11, Article II for possession, due to inconsistencies in identifying the sachet during cross-examination.
The dispositive part of the decision sentenced her to life imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₱500,000.00 for the illegal sale, while she was acquitted on the possession count.

On April 29, 2016, the CA affirmed the RTC’s decision.
The CA rejected appellant’s argument that the prosecution failed to demonstrate compliance with the procedural requirements under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, specifically the presence of representatives from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ) during the physical inventory and photographing of the seized shabu.
The CA reasoned that the buy-bust team’s actions amounted to substantial compliance with the procedural safeguards, thereby preserving the evidentiary integrity and chain of custody of the seized items.

Whether the absence of a representative from the media and the DOJ during the physical inventory and photographing of the seized shabu compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence.

Whether the prosecution effectively demonstrated that the essential elements of a sale (identification of buyer and seller, object and consideration, and delivery of the thing sold) were established beyond reasonable doubt.

Whether the failure to secure the attendance of the required witnesses (media and DOJ representatives) can be justified by circumstances such as safety concerns, logistical constraints, or other reasonable grounds.
Whether mere statements of unavailability without evidence of earnest efforts to secure their presence suffice to validate the procedure.