G.R. No. L-3004 - Tomias vs. Tomias

On February 13, 2004, at around 12:05 noon in Butuan City, police officers from the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) of the PNP initiated a buy-bust operation at Montilla Street.
Prior surveillance confirmed that the area was a hub for illegal drug trade, prompting the police to organize an operation divided into two teams.

During the operation, PO2 Lasco acted as a poseur-buyer armed with a marked buy-bust money of FOUR HUNDRED pesos in one hundred-peso bills.
The accused, Jayson C. Hambora, approached Lasco and inquired about selling shabu, which led to an immediate transaction.

Hambora handed over one (1) sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) weighing 0.0743 grams in exchange for 400 pesos.

After the transaction, Lasco revealed his identity as a police officer, prompting his immediate arrest.
Subsequent to the arrest, Hambora underwent a physical search which led to the discovery of marked money and the confiscated sachet.

The seized sachet, marked with the initials "JAR" (representing Jessie, Andrew, and Raul), was submitted as evidence.
A laboratory examination conducted by Forensic Chemical Officer Cramwell Banogon (via Laboratory Report No. D-026-04) confirmed that the substance was a dangerous drug (shabu).

Hambora claimed that on the morning of the incident he was at his residence and later went to Montilla Street solely to run an errand related to a debt collection for a small-time lending business.
He asserted that he did not engage in any transaction involving shabu and that he was arrested while returning home.
Hambora further stated that he requested the presence of barangay officials during his physical search, which was denied by the police officers.

At trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Butuan City found Hambora guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), sentencing him to life imprisonment and imposing a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱500,000.00).
The Court of Appeals (CA) later affirmed the RTC’s decision, upholding the credibility of the police testimonies despite minor irregularities in their accounts.
The CA emphasized that, even though the procedural requirements of Section 21 of R.A. 9165 were not strictly met, the unbroken chain of custody and the overall integrity of the evidence rendered such noncompliance immaterial.

On appeal, Hambora argued that he was framed by the police and disputed elements of the buy-bust operation.
Both the CA and the Supreme Court rejected his contention, stressing that the prosecution had sufficiently demonstrated the occurrence of a bona fide transaction.
The positive and corroborative testimonies of the apprehending officers, along with the physical and laboratory evidence, underpinned Hambora’s conviction.

Whether the prosecution was able to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that Hambora engaged in the illegal sale of shabu.

Whether the evidentiary elements — the identities of buyer and seller, the object of the sale (shabu), and the consideration (₱400.00) — were proved.
Whether the conduct of the buy-bust operation and the subsequent chain of custody of the seized evidence suffice to uphold the conviction despite minor procedural lapses.

Whether Hambora’s claim of being framed by police holds merit in light of the facts and testimonies presented.

Whether the alleged discrepancies in the testimonies of the police officers significantly affect the credibility of their evidence.
Whether the overall operation was conducted in a manner that justifies the presumption of proper law enforcement performance.