Facts:
On
6 July 2005,
Rosario Bayot Mahinay was charged with
selling dangerous drugs in violation of
Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 in
Criminal Case No. CBU-73919. The
information alleged that on
25 June 2005 at about
4:30 p.m. at
Sitio Mananga, Tabunoc, Talisay City, Cebu, the accused, with
deliberate intent and
without authority of law,
sold, delivered, or gave away to a
poseur buyer ten (10) sticks of marijuana cigarettes, weighing
1.79 grams, as a dangerous drug. Upon
arraignment on 23 August 2005, the accused pleaded
not guilty, and pre-trial terminated on the same date, after which trial proceeded. The prosecution presented
SPO4 Reynaldo Vitualia as the buy-bust operation head,
PO3 Ramil Navarro as part of the buy-bust team, and
PSI David Alexander T. Patriana as forensic chemist. They testified that on
25 June 2005, the police received information from an unnamed asset that the accused was selling marijuana near
Mananga Bridge and conducted a briefing for the intended operation. A civilian
poseur buyer proceeded to the target area while the team positioned itself to observe. At about
4:30 p.m., the team witnessed the poseur buyer hand over a
marked P100 bill to the accused at a distance of around
15 meters, after which the accused handed over the
sticks of marijuana to the poseur buyer. The poseur buyer then executed the pre-arranged signal, and the team rushed in to arrest the accused, who attempted to run. During apprehension, officers also saw another person who threw marijuana cigarette sticks while fleeing; that person was arrested and a separate case was filed. After the arrest, the team recovered the marked money from the accused, informed him of the charge, and recited constitutional rights. In less than two minutes, the
ten (10) marijuana cigarette sticks were recovered from the buy-bust operation and turned over to
SPO4 Vitualia, who marked the sticks as
“RBM-1” to “RBM-10”. A letter request for laboratory examination was prepared and brought to the
PNP Crime Laboratory. The forensic chemist testified that the specimens submitted to him were the same items examined and that his
Chemistry Report No. D-905-2005 yielded
positive results for
marijuana. The accused, as his sole witness, claimed that he was waiting alone in
Mananga Bridge for his daughter selling
palitaw. He alleged that two unknown persons gave him a P100 bill intended to buy marijuana and that when he received the money he immediately returned it. He narrated that one person announced that police officers were rushing, prompting the other to run away and throw a small plastic on the ground. He then claimed that police officers arrived, arrested him and the other person, frisked and handcuffed them, informed him of the charge, and brought him to the police station. He insisted that evidence was
planted, he was not engaged in selling marijuana, and he presented his livelihood as scrap iron dealings with his brother. The
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu convicted him on
29 January 2008, ruling that the prosecution proved the elements of the offense beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused failed to overcome the
presumption of regularity in the police officers’ performance, given allegations of ill-motive and planted evidence. On appeal, the
Court of Appeals affirmed in toto on
24 May 2013, holding that the integrity of the seized items and the
chain of custody remained unbroken from the buy-bust operation to forensic examination and submission to court, and that non-compliance with inventory and photograph requirements was not fatal due to justifiable grounds and preserved integrity. In the Supreme Court, the accused contended that conviction was erroneous due to the failure of police to comply with
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, particularly the absence of inventory and photographs immediately after confiscation.
Issues:
Whether the accused-appellant was proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
illegal sale of marijuana under
Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, despite alleged non-compliance with the inventory and photograph requirements under
Section 21 of the law.
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: