Facts:
On 25 March 2010, in Barangay Pansol, Calamba City, Laguna,
Accused-appellant Allan Lumagui y Maligid was charged in two consolidated criminal cases arising from an alleged buy-bust operation. In
Crim. Case No. 17178-2010-C, he was charged with
Violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, for allegedly having in his possession five plastic sachets containing
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) with a total weight of 0.12 gram. In
Crim. Case No. 17179-2010-C, he, together with the accused
Antonio D. Rueda (Rueda), was charged with
Violation of Sec. 26, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 for allegedly selling to a poseur-buyer one plastic sachet of shabu weighing 0.02 gram, with conspiracy and mutual help. After pleading not guilty, accused-appellant moved for consolidation, which the trial court granted, and a joint hearing followed. During trial, Rueda died even before the defense could begin presenting evidence, and the charge against him was dismissed, leaving accused-appellant’s liability for the remaining offenses to be resolved. The prosecution presented
PO1 Richard Cruz,
PO2 Allen Llorente, and the police witnesses involved in the buy-bust operation, and the forensic examination was supported through stipulation concerning
Forensic Chemist Lalaine Ong-Rodrigo’s qualifications, the contents and weights of six specimens tested, and the authenticity and due execution of
Chemistry Report No. D-105-10. The prosecution narrated that the police received information that Rueda (alias “Papang”) and another alias (“Ninang”) were still involved in illegal drug selling, which led to the formation of two buy-bust teams. One team conducted the operation on Rueda and “Ninang,” with SPO1 Naredo, PO2 Llorente, PO1 Cruz, Capt. Sarreal, and a civilian asset. They proceeded to an abandoned resort where the asset approached the gate and the transaction occurred: Rueda allegedly asked if the asset would “get,” and after the asset handed
P200.00 marked money, accused-appellant allegedly emerged and handed a plastic sachet to Rueda, who then delivered it to the asset. Immediately after, the team allegedly arrested both Rueda and accused-appellant; PO1 Cruz handcuffed Rueda, confiscated the buy-bust money, marked the sachet sold as “AML-RMC,” and then the team reportedly bodily searched accused-appellant and recovered five plastic sachets marked “AML-RMC1” through “AML-RMC5.” The incident was reportedly entered into the barangay blotter only after the marking of seized items, and photographs showed accused-appellant, Rueda, and a barangay official with seized items, though the case records later showed no effective compliance with the physical inventory requirement under the law’s implementing rules. Accused-appellant denied the charges and claimed that on 25 March 2010 he went to Rueda’s house to sort out problems at home and was sleeping around 4:00 p.m.; he asserted he was roused by armed men in civilian clothing, subjected to questioning about a gun, later brought to the station after Rueda was arrested, and confronted with a bag poured out to reveal lighters and plastic sachets with a white substance while pictures were taken. The
Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, Calamba City, nevertheless convicted accused-appellant on 2 September 2013, and the
Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in a 24 April 2015 decision. The appellate courts sustained the buy-bust narrative, found positive identification, concluded that the
chain of custody was substantially proven, and held that any lapses under Sec. 21 were excusable as long as integrity was preserved and no ill motive was shown. Accused-appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues:
Whether accused-appellant’s conviction could stand despite the prosecution’s failure to establish compliance with
Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its
Implementing Rules and Regulations on inventory and related custody safeguards, and its failure to prove an
unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs from seizure to court presentation.
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: