G.R. No. 229364 - People vs. De Vera

On October 14, 2011, an Amended Information was filed against appellants Donna Claire De Vera and Abigail Cacal y Valiente in connection with the alleged illegal sale of shabu (methamphetamine hydrochloride) in Laoag City.
The charge accused the appellants of conspiring to sell and deliver a plastic sachet containing an alleged 0.0415 gram dose of shabu without proper authority, in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).

The case was raffled to Regional Trial Court – Branch 13 in Laoag City where, upon arraignment, both appellants pleaded not guilty.
During trial, several prosecution witnesses testified (including PO1 Jackson Bannawagan Sugayen, SPO4 Loreto Ancheta, and SPO4 Rovimanuel Balolong) regarding details of the buy-bust operation, while certain testimonies (SPO2 Teodoro Flojo and PS/Insp. Roanalaine B. Baligod) were dispensed with through stipulation.
Defense witnesses such as Roy Constantino, Janet Hernando, Teofilo Bernabe, and the appellants themselves testified, offering a version of events that included claims of wrongful arrest and police misconduct.

On October 8, 2011, an informant alerted SPO4 Balolong of a planned drug sale involving Abigail Cacal y Valiente, leading to a coordinated buy-bust operation.

The team, led by SPO4 Balolong with designated roles (including PO1 Sugayen as the poseur-buyer provided marked money), planned and executed the operation near Data Center Philippines in Laoag City.
The operation involved transporting the team by car and tricycle, and positioning the poseur-buyer near the venue to effect the transaction.

During the operation, after approximately 15–30 minutes, a transaction occurred where appellant Donna Claire De Vera appeared by motorcycle, participated in the delivery of the plastic sachet containing the drug to PO1 Sugayen, who in turn received the buy-bust money.
After the transaction, the police arrested both appellants, recovered the sachet, and proceeded to register the post-operation events, including:

Marking the plastic sachet (initial markings “JBS” alleged by PO1 Sugayen).
The subsequent chain of custody involving the transfer and eventual laboratory examination by PS/Insp. Baligod that yielded a positive report for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
An inventory and photograph of the evidence were eventually performed at the Laoag City Police Station, albeit not under the mandatory presence of all required witnesses.

Appellant Abigail Cacal presented testimony recounting his alternative version of events:

He claimed he was in Laoag City on unrelated business and ended up being accosted by police officers after inadvertently encountering PO1 Sugayen.
He alleged that he was subjected to excessive force and police brutality during and after the arrest, and maintained his denial of any involvement in drug dealing.

Appellant Donna Claire De Vera testified that she had been carrying P1,000.00 for a personal errand when police officers intercepted and detained her after a confrontation, asserting that there was no involvement in any drug transaction.
Additional defense testimonies corroborated the version that detailed the irregularities in the conduct of the buy-bust operation and questioned the integrity of the seizure and subsequent handling of the evidence.

The trial court rendered a decision on March 28, 2014, convicting both appellants for the illegal sale of shabu and sentencing them to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00, with the confiscated drugs disposed of as prescribed by law.
On appeal, in a decision dated January 04, 2016, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling based on:

Establishing that the prosecution adequately proved the elements of the offense despite procedural lapses.
Relying on the argument that the absence of designated witnesses during inventory did not fatally affect the case as long as the integrity of the seized item was preserved.

Appellants then elevated the case, emphasizing alleged procedural irregularities, particularly lapses in the chain of custody of the seized drug.

Appellants challenged the reliability of the prosecution’s evidence by citing multiple breaches in the chain of custody, including:

Failure to mark and inventory the seized item immediately at the scene of arrest.
Inconsistent procedures in the handling and transferring of the evidence.

They argued that these procedural deficiencies created serious doubts regarding the identification and integrity (corpus delicti) of the illegal drug, warranting an acquittal.

Whether the repeated breaches of the chain of custody rule in handling the allegedly seized shabu rendered the evidence unreliable.

Specifically, whether the failure to promptly mark, inventory, and photograph the drug in the presence of the required witnesses compromised the evidentiary integrity.

Whether the discrepancies and deviations in the procedures for handling the seized drug – including inconsistencies in labeling and transfer times – led to doubts as to whether the item presented in court was indeed the same item confiscated from the appellants.
Whether the procedural lapses in conducting the buy-bust operation, as pleaded by the appellants, resulted in the violation of their right to due process, thereby justifying their acquittal.