G.R. No. 14595 - Sarasola vs. Trinidad

The accused-appellant, Lee Quijano Enad, was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).
The Information alleged that on August 14, 2005 at Barangay Bayong, Balamban, Cebu, Enad willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously sold a plastic bag containing 2,722 grams of dried suspected marijuana to one of the poseur-buyers of the Philippine National Police (PNP) in exchange for marked money.
The case was initially filed and subsequently tried in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Toledo City, Cebu, Branch 29, Criminal Case No. TCS-5357.

There was a surveillance operation initiated following a tip-off about rampant drug sales by the accused.
Under the directive of P/Supt. Amado Marquez, Police Chief Inspector Carmelo Dayon coordinated with P/Insps. Leoncio G. Demauro and Arceliano A. BaAares of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) to conduct a buy-bust operation.
During the operation conducted on August 14, 2005:

P/Insp. BaAares acted as the poseur-buyer and engaged in negotiations with Enad.
Enad discussed the price and opened his bag containing the suspected marijuana.
Upon the pre-arranged signal, BaAares took the bag, signifying that the transaction was consummated.
P/Insp. Demauro acted as the back-up and arresting officer, assisted in the immediate arrest of Enad, and recovered the buy-bust money.

One plastic bag purportedly containing 2,722 grams of dried marijuana.
Buy-bust money composed of marked currency, specifically two one hundred peso bills with recorded serial numbers.

The bag was marked with the initials “LQE” and dated “08-14-2005.”
Procedures relating to the marking, physical inventory, and submission of the evidence were conducted at the PDEA office with the presence of a barangay official and mediaman, as indicated by the Certificate of Inventory.
A laboratory examination by the PNP Crime Laboratory confirmed the specimen tested positive for marijuana.

P/Insp. BaAares and P/Insp. Demauro testified as the principal members of the buy-bust team.
Their testimonies established the elements: identification of the buyer (BaAares) and seller (Enad), the transaction of the object (marijuana), and consideration (buy-bust money).

Enad claimed that he was merely traveling by motorcycle and was apprehended through coercive means.
He alleged procedural irregularities such as being forced to sign the booking sheet and inconsistencies in the police conduct, including being struck by one of the officers.
The defense emphasized gaps in the chain of custody, raising doubts as to who handled the marking of the evidence and whether proper procedures under Section 21 of RA 9165 were followed.

Enad was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
The court held that the combination of testimonial, documentary, and laboratory evidence proved the illegal sale of drugs.
The court ruled that the apparent lapses in marking and custody procedures were justifiable given the circumstances of the buy-bust operation.

The CA dismissed the appeal of the accused, affirming the RTC’s ruling.
It held that the evidentiary elements and the testimonies of the police officers sufficiently established the conduct of the transaction.

Enad contended that the prosecution failed to prove an unbroken chain of custody, thus casting doubt on the integrity of the corpus delicti.
The defense argued that gaps existed regarding who marked the evidence and who assumed custody between seizure and laboratory submission.

There was no clear evidence as to who marked the bag with “LQE” and the date “08-14-2005” or whether it was done in Enad’s presence.
The identification of the person responsible for turning over the evidence between the arrest and its submission for laboratory testing was not clearly established.
The failure to establish the first three links (marking, turnover to the investigating officer, and turnover to the forensic chemist) in the chain of custody undermined the integrity of the evidence.

Consequently, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to propagate the mandatory chain of custody required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the evidence offered was the same as that seized from Enad.

Whether the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the element of illegal sale by establishing all material elements, including:

Identification of the buyer (P/Insp. BaAares) and seller (Enad).
Proof of the object of the sale (2,722 grams of marijuana).
Evidence of the transaction, specifically the delivery of the article and the receipt of consideration.

Whether the prosecution complied with the procedural requirements regarding the custody and disposition of seized dangerous drugs under Section 21 of RA 9165.
Whether the gaps and inconsistencies in the chain of custody, such as failure to establish who marked the evidence and the absence of a clear turnover process, created reasonable doubt as to the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti.