G.R. No. 241950 - People vs. Malaba y Peralta

In an Information dated February 27, 2014, Arcadio Malabanan y Peralta, Norman Quita y Quibido, and Roque Heredia were charged with violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for the alleged illegal sale and delivery of a quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride (“shabu”) weighing 0.17 grams.
The accusatory portion specified that on or about 12:30 a.m. of February 25, 2014, at Brgy. Pansol in Calamba City, the accused, in concert with one another and without legal authority, conducted a willful, unlawful, and felonious sale to a poseur-buyer.

A tip from a confidential informant (CI) triggered the operation, indicating that the accused were engaged in selling drugs at Heredia’s residence.
The Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) coordinated with the police for a buy-bust operation.

Police Officer 1 Alvin Santos (PO1 Santos) acted as the poseur-buyer and was provided with marked money (two P500 bills).
Upon entering Heredia’s residence, the CI introduced PO1 Santos to Heredia and the accused.
The transaction proceeded when Quita inquired about the price, and PO1 Santos offered to purchase shabu worth P1,000.
The exchange resulted in PO1 Santos receiving a plastic sachet containing the drug which was later physically marked, inventoried, and secured.

After the pre-arranged signal, the police apprehended the accused and secured the scene.
The incident was recorded in a barangay blotter, and the seized items were physically inventoried and photographed.
Despite procedural irregularities—namely, the absence of required witnesses such as representatives from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), or an elected public official during the inventory—the integrity of the seizure was maintained as per the proponent’s chain-of-custody narrative.

Norman Quita asserted that at the time of the alleged sale he was at the residence of Tata Adeng in Brgy. Bagong Kalsada, Calamba City, engaged in unrelated work (cutting a banana tree) and subsequently fell asleep.
Quita described being awoken by a group in civilian clothes, subjected to physical harm, frisked, tied up, and ultimately transported along with Heredia and Malabanan.

Malabanan contended that while en route to Laguna de Bay for fishing, he was forcibly stopped by a van whose occupants held him at gunpoint, interrogated him regarding the location of the shabu, and later took him to the city hall.
The defense raised issues of possible entrapment and non-compliant police procedures which could undermine the chain-of-custody and the integrity of the seized evidence.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
The RTC credited PO1 Santos’ testimony and upheld that all elements constituting the offense were present.
The RTC also ruled that the deviations from the prescribed evidence-marking procedure did not vitiate the seizure, as the chain-of-custody was adequately preserved.

The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s conviction, emphasizing the validity of the buy-bust operation and rejecting the defense’s contention regarding non-compliance with the 2014 Revised PNP Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operations and Investigation.
The CA maintained that the absence of some mandated witnesses did not affect the evidentiary value of the seizures, as the chain-of-custody and integrity of the evidence were intact.

Whether the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt the essential elements of the offense, namely the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery and payment in the illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
Whether the physical and documentary evidence provided, particularly through the buy-bust operation, was sufficient to confirm the presence of the narcotics as the corpus delicti.

Whether the deviations from the mandated procedure for inventory and marking—specifically, the failure to have representatives from the media, the DOJ, and an elected public official present—compromised the chain-of-custody and the integrity of the seized drugs.
Whether the justifications (or lack thereof) provided for such deviations were sufficient to uphold the evidentiary value of the seized shabu.

Whether the alleged failure to secure the presence of required witnesses during the physical inventory and marking of the drugs creates sufficient doubt as to the identity of the evidence presented in court.
Whether non-compliance with the specific procedural safeguards mandated by Section 21, even if excusable under justifiable grounds, should lead to an acquittal if the integrity of the chain-of-custody is in question.