G.R. No. 210617 - People vs. Ferdez y Abarquiz

The case involves an appeal by Orlando Fernandez y Abarquiz from the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the conviction by the Regional Trial Court in Dagupan City for violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act).
The charge arose from an alleged sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride (commonly known as shabu) contained in a plastic sachet weighing approximately 0.13 gram.

On 18 November 2009, a buy-bust operation was conducted in Dagupan City by the Provincial Anti-Illegal Drug Special Operations Task Group (PAIDSOTG).
A pre-trial conference established key details, including the accused’s identity and the time and place of arrest (Gonzales Street, Bonuan Boquig, Dagupan City, at 4:55 p.m.).
During the operation, police officers assumed designated roles: PO3 Baruelo served as the poseur-buyer, PO3 Domalanta as the arresting officer, and several other members provided backup and performed ancillary functions.

The operation was structured with clear roles: a briefing led by PCI Lopez, the assignment of a poseur-buyer, and the use of pre-arranged signals (e.g., PO3 Baruelo scratching his head) to indicate the completion of the sale.
The accused was observed engaging in a transaction by handing over a plastic sachet containing the suspected shabu in exchange for a marked P500.00 peso-bill.
Following the transaction, when the accused attempted to flee, PO3 Domalanta apprehended him, and he was informed of his constitutional rights.

The seized items were subjected to a physical inventory, marked appropriately (though not immediately at the scene), photographed, and later presented as evidence in court.
A qualitative laboratory examination confirmed that the contents of the sachet were indeed methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Although there was a delay in marking the items immediately after the arrest, subsequent procedures at the nearest police station preserved the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items.

The appellant claimed that he was merely a referring agent and not the actual seller of the drugs.
He contended that a man had approached him seeking a referral to a shabu seller, promising a commission fee, and that he only directed the man to another person.
The defense argued that during the ensuing arrest, no drugs were found on the appellant, and the confiscated items actually belonged to the person with whom the transaction was negotiated.
The defense’s version was weakened by the lack of independent evidence or testimony corroborating his account.

On 9 May 2012, the Regional Trial Court rendered a decision convicting the appellant, sentencing him to life imprisonment and imposing a fine of P500,000.00.
The trial court rejected the defense assertion regarding the commission fee and emphasized the corroborative evidence, particularly the testimony of PO3 Baruelo.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, ruling that the elements of the crime were clearly established by the prosecution.
The appellant’s subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court raised issues regarding the integrity of the chain of custody and procedural lapses in marking and inventorying the seized items.

The Supreme Court reviewed the records and the procedural aspects concerning the chain of custody.
It noted that, while immediate marking was not performed at the scene, the subsequent steps taken at the nearest police station ensured preservation of the evidence.
The court ultimately found that the prosecution had satisfied its burden of proving the transaction and that the procedural lapses were not fatal to the case against the appellant.

Whether the prosecution established all the essential elements of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.

Identification of the buyer and seller.
Proof of the object sold (shabu) and the consideration (a marked P500.00 peso-bill).
Evidence of the delivery and completion of the transaction, demonstrated by the prearranged signal and physical exchange.

Whether the procedural lapses in the marking, photographing, and inventorying of the seized items affected the integrity of the chain of custody.

Assessment of whether the delay in marking the evidence compromised its evidentiary value.
Consideration of the saving clause under the IRR of RA 9165.

Whether the appellant’s claim of merely serving as a referring agent is credible.

Evaluation of the defense’s argument that he was not the seller but only facilitated contact between a prospective buyer and an alleged shabu vendor.
The sufficiency of the evidence against the appellant to establish his direct involvement in the sale.

Whether the minor procedural lapses can be excused in light of the preservation of the evidence’s integrity.