G.R. No. 176625 - Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority vs. Lozada, Sr.

The case involves the People of the Philippines versus Roberto Holgado y Dela Cruz and Antonio Misarez y Zaraga.
The accused were charged primarily for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), while additional charges for possession of dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia were later dismissed or resulted in acquittals.

In December 2006, reports emerged of drug-related activities along C. Raymundo Street in Pasig City.
Following surveillance operations, a search warrant was issued against Holgado.
The Pasig City Chief of Police, on the search warrant, directed his officers to conduct a buy-bust operation if possible before executing the warrant.

On the evening of January 17, 2007, police operatives, including PO1 Philip Aure (acting as a poseur-buyer) and an informant, executed the buy-bust at No. 17 C. Raymundo Street.
Holgado, during a drinking session, and his companion Misarez were involved when:

The informant indicated interest in buying drugs after being offered a drink by Holgado.
The transaction commenced as Holgado called Misarez, who then emerged from a restroom and handed a plastic sachet containing 0.05 gram of a white crystalline substance to PO1 Aure.
PO1 Aure examined the contents and signaled the consummation of the sale by taking out his cellphone.

Upon noticing the arrival of other police operatives, both accused attempted to flee, with Misarez initially escaping and then later joining Holgado within the premises.
The police managed to re-apprehend both accused through pursuit via adjoining rooms and breaking open the door with a crowbar.

The plastic sachet, which was marked (aRH-PAa) by PO1 Aure at the scene, became the critical piece of evidence for the charge of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
A physical inventory of seized items was prepared by PO3 Abuyme during the operation.
There were inconsistencies regarding whether the inventory covered only the items from the enforcement of the search warrant or also those from the buy-bust operation.
Other seized items were linked to separate criminal cases that later were dismissed.

Found both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of dangerous drugs (Section 5).
Acquitted them of charges related to possession of dangerous drugs and possession of drug paraphernalia due to evidentiary shortcomings.
Imposed the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P1 million on each accused.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling in a decision rendered on February 18, 2013.
On March 4, 2013, Holgado and Misarez appealed, and a supplemental brief was eventually filed contesting the integrity of the chain of custody of the seized evidence.

The Supreme Court focused on whether the prosecution established the corpus delicti through proper compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 concerning the custody, inventory, and handling of seized drugs.
Emphasis was placed on the following factual and procedural lapses:

The chain of custody was questioned given the alleged non-compliance with the inventory and marking procedures, as well as gaps in the physical custody of the seized sachet.
The extremely small quantity (0.05 gram) of the dangerous drug heightened the risk of tampering or accidental contamination.
Testimonies and documentary evidence showed discrepancies regarding the handling, photographing, and recording of the seized item.

Citing relevant jurisprudence (e.g., People v. Morales, People v. Belocura, Malilin v. People, People v. Nandi), the Court underscored that any lapse in the prescribed chain and evidentiary procedure taints the integrity of the evidence presented.

Whether the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of RA 9165.

Whether the elements required for the crime, particularly the transaction and identification of the dangerous drug as evidence (corpus delicti), were satisfactorily proven.

Whether the proper procedures prescribed by Section 21 of RA 9165 were complied with in handling the seized evidence.

The issue of whether the chain of custody of the plastic sachet was maintained sufficiently to preclude tampering, substitution, or planting.

Whether the procedural lapses, particularly during the buy-bust operation and evidence handling, created reasonable doubt regarding the integrity of the seized drug evidence.

The significance of the minuscule quantity (0.05 gram) of shabu in relation to the safeguards required against contamination or planting.