G.R. No. 42122 - People vs. Moldes

This case involves an appeal seeking to reverse the September 23, 2016 Decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the conviction of appellant Antonio Martin y Ison for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165 (the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).
The conviction imposed life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 on the appellant.

The appellant was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs based on an Information alleging that on February 17, 2010, in San Leonardo, Nueva Ecija, he controlled and attempted to sell one (1) plastic sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride (“shabu”) without the proper permit or license.
At arraignment, the appellant pleaded not guilty, leading to a trial which produced testimonies from various prosecution witnesses – notably, members of the Philippine National Police (PNP) and a forensic chemist.

The buy-bust operation was initiated when PO3 Alfredo Gavino received information from a confidential informant about the alleged drug sale.
Police personnel, including PO3 Gavino, PO2 Jherome Songalia, and others, conducted the operation:

At around 4:30 p.m. on February 17, 2010, information prompted the operation.
The officers coordinated a buy-bust exercise using a confidential informant as the poseur buyer, with designated roles including the handling of P100.00 bills dusted with ultraviolet powder and positioning themselves at the scene.
The transaction was observed visually by the officers, and after the alleged sale was consummated, the officers immediately closed in, frisked the appellant, and recovered both the buy-bust money and a plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance.

Seized evidence was then transported to a police station, formally inventoried in the presence of the accused along with several witnesses (media representatives, a barangay official, and a clerk of court), and subsequently turned over to an investigating officer and forensic chemist for laboratory examination.

Prosecution witnesses detailed the sequence of events during the arrest and chain of custody:

PO3 Gavino testified on the seizure, marking, and subsequent handling of the plastic sachet.
Forensic Chemist Jebie C. Timario confirmed via laboratory reports that the substance inside the sachet tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride (“shabu”).

However, there were inconsistencies in the testimonies among the arresting officers regarding:

Who performed the marking of the seized item (conflicting claims between PO3 Gavino and PO3 Sevilla).
The inventory process and the exact sequence of transfers from the scene to the crime laboratory.

The appellant testified that on the day in question, while he was outside his residence, he was approached by Manuel Pangilinan who coerced him with threats during an attempted interrogation.
The defense contended that the police officers did not categorically prove that an actual sale took place, highlighting inconsistencies and deficiencies, particularly regarding the chain-of-custody procedures.
The defense challenged the integrity of the evidence, noting that the seized item could have been tampered with due to procedural lapses during its transfer and inventory.

The trial court found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt and imposed the penalty of life imprisonment along with a substantial fine.
A motion for reconsideration was denied by the trial court.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision in its September 23, 2016 ruling, upholding the conviction in spite of the defense’s contentions regarding inconsistencies and the alleged breach of the chain-of-custody requirements.

The appellant argued that critical procedural lapses, especially the repeated breaches of the chain-of-custody rule, worked to his detriment.
It was asserted that inconsistencies in the officers’ testimonies regarding marking, inventory, and handling of the drug evidence created serious doubts about the integrity of the evidence.
The defense further emphasized that non-compliance with the precise protocols set out by the IRR of RA 9165 negated the reliability of the corpus delicti.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of Antonio Martin y Ison for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165.
Whether the numerous lapses and inconsistencies in the chain of custody of the seized drug evidence were sufficient to undermine the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti.
Whether the failure to comply fully with the procedural mandates under Section 21 of RA 9165’s IRR, such as immediate marking and proper photographic documentation, justifies the application of the saving clause or warrants an acquittal.