G.R. No. 202206 - People vs. Moner y Adam

On April 23, 2005, in Quezon City, appellant Teng Moner y Adam was involved in a buy-bust operation for shabu (methylamphetamine hydrochloride).
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 95, in Criminal Case No. Q-05-133982, convicted Moner for illegal sale of 3.91 g of shabu under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a ₱500,000 fine.
In Criminal Case No. Q-05-133983, Moner and co-accused were acquitted for possession under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision on July 27, 2011. Moner appealed to the Supreme Court.

Police operatives of Las Piñas Anti-Illegal Drugs SOTF arrested Joel Taudil for possession; he identified Moner as his source. A buy-bust team led by P/Insp. Jonathan Cabal was formed with PO2 Joachim Panopio as poseur-buyer.
After preparing a pre-operation report and coordinating with PDEA, the team surveilled No. 26 Varsity Lane, Barangay Culiat, Tandang Sora. Panopio met Moner, agreed to buy five grams of shabu at ₱8,000, exchanged marked money for a sachet, and signaled the arrest. Moner resisted but was apprehended.
Seized items were taken to Las Piñas Police Station, inventoried, marked by PO3 Dalagdagan, and submitted to the PNP Crime Lab, which tested positive for shabu.

Moner and his co-accused were at the house preparing for a wedding when armed men in civilian clothes (police officers) forcibly entered, conducted an invalid search, handcuffed them, and allegedly planted or dropped a sachet of shabu.
They were brought to Las Piñas Police Station, extorted for money for their release, and later subjected to testing. No formal complaint for extortion was filed.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 (existence of transaction, identity of corpus delicti, and identification of parties).
Whether deviations from the chain‐of‐custody requirements (inventory and photography at the scene, presence of statutorily required witnesses) vitiated the integrity and admissibility of the seized shabu.
Whether the trial court and appellate court correctly resolved the credibility of prosecution and defense witnesses, including the need (or lack thereof) to present the informant.