G.R. No. 57876 - Gaerlan vs. Court of Appeals

The accused-appellant, Edgar Denoman y Acurda, was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) under two separate informations for violations of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 – the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Criminal Case No. 27283-MN charged him with illegal possession of dangerous drugs, alleging that on July 30, 2002 in Malabon City he was found in possession of a heat-sealed plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance that tested positive for shabu.
Criminal Case No. 28387-MN charged him with the illegal sale of shabu, alleging that on February 17, 2003 in Malabon City he sold a similar sachet containing shabu for a consideration of P100.00.

During a narcotics operation on July 30, 2002, P/A Ticlao and his team encountered the accused-appellant and a companion holding plastic sachets suspected of containing shabu.
The accused-appellant and his companion were immediately arrested; the items were secured and later sent for laboratory examination, which confirmed the presence of shabu.
Documentary evidence such as the blotters, laboratory reports, and affidavits of arrest substantiated this account.

On February 17, 2003, acting as a poseur buyer during a buy-bust operation triggered by a confidential informant, PO1 Carlos testified that he purchased a sachet of shabu from the accused-appellant inside a house on Sulucan Street, Malabon City.
His testimony detailed the brief transaction, the subsequent signal that prompted the arrest, and the chain of custody procedures (or lack thereof) thereafter.
Documentary evidence including the buy-bust blotter, a copy of the P100.00 bill, and supporting laboratory documents were presented.

The accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges, maintaining that he was a victim of a frame-up and extortion, and asserting that the charges were filed due to his refusal to provide information on a person named Rollie.
Both prosecution and defense agreed to dispense with the testimonies of additional defense witnesses on the understanding that these would only corroborate the accused’s version.
The defense also attacked the credibility of PO1 Carlos’ testimony, questioning inconsistencies and gaps regarding the handling of evidence during the buy-bust.

The RTC convicted the accused-appellant on the drug pushing charge while acquitting him on the illegal possession charge, sentencing him to life imprisonment, a fine of P500,000, and payment of costs.
The Court of Appeals (CA) later affirmed the RTC’s ruling, relying heavily on the testimony of PO1 Carlos and the presumption of regularity in police operations.
Critical lapses were noted regarding the handling of the seized evidence:

Inadequate marking and identification of the seized plastic sachet were observed.
The chain of custody procedures were not clearly established; there was no detailed evidence showing the inventory, photograph, or transfer of custody in compliance with Section 21 of RA No. 9165 and its IRR.
Testimony from PO1 Carlos omitted key details about the custody and handling of the evidence between seizure and its presentation in court.

Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution sufficiently established each element of the crime, especially the identification of the corpus delicti (i.e., the shabu seized during the buy-bust operation).
Whether there was a clear and unbroken chain of custody from the seizure of the evidence to its presentation in court.

Whether the inconsistencies and omissions in the testimony of PO1 Carlos undermine the prosecution’s case.
Whether the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties applies given the significant procedural lapses.

Whether the apprehending team’s failure to comply with the strict procedures for physical inventory, photographing, and documentation as required by Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of RA No. 9165 and its implementing rules compromised the evidentiary value of the seized substance.