G.R. No. 236161 - Lugawe vs. Pacific Cebu Resort International, Inc.

Darwin Relato y Ajero was arrested during a buy-bust operation on August 29, 2002 by policemen in Barangay Aquino, Municipality of Bulan, Sorsogon.
The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Sorsogon charged him on August 30, 2002 at the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 65, Bulan, Sorsogon.
The charge was for violating Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for allegedly selling, dispensing, and delivering two plastic sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride in exchange for P500.00.

At 6:00 pm on August 29, 2002, PO3 Sonny Evasco received a tip from his asset about Relato’s intent to peddle illegal drugs at midnight.
SPO1 Elmer Masujer, the chief of the Intelligence Department at the Bulan Police Station, immediately organized a buy-bust team comprising himself, PO3 Evasco, PO1 Wilfredo Lobrin, and SPO2 Adolfo Villaroza.
SPO1 Masujer prepared a P500.00 bill, marking it with his initials, to serve as the buy-bust money.
The team awaited confirmation from the informant. At 10:00 pm, the informant confirmed that the transaction would take place near a lamp post beside an ice plant in Barangay Aquino.
The team deployed in strategic positions:

PO3 Evasco and SPO2 Villaroya concealed themselves approximately 7 to 10 meters from the lamp post.
SPO1 Masujer and PO1 Lobrin provided security from 10 to 15 meters away.

Relato and a companion, later identified as Pido Paredes, arrived on a motorcycle.
After Relato disembarked to confer with the poseur buyer (an asset), the transaction was completed.
PO3 Evasco signaled to the team, prompting their rapid deployment and the subsequent apprehension of Relato.
Seized items included:

The marked P500.00 bill used during the operation.
Two transparent sachets containing a crystalline substance, later subject to forensic examination.

SPO1 Masujer later marked the seized sachets with his initials (“aEMa”) when they reached the police station.
Forensic Chemical Officer Josephine Clemen examined the sachets and certified a total weight of 0.991 gram positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.

Relato denied the accusation claiming that he was framed.
He testified that at around 11:00 pm on August 29, 2002, he was en route to his grandfather’s wake in Magallanes, Sorsogon, along with Paredes.
While stopping in Barangay Aquino to adjust his motorcycle’s fuel cock, SPO1 Masujer suddenly appeared and arrested him.
During the arrest, he resisted, and the arresting officers seized his personal belongings, including:

A Nokia cellphone (which Relato claimed belonged to Paredes).
His personal money amounting to P3,500.00 in P500.00 bills, purportedly a gift from an in-law.

At the police station, officers compelled Relato to remove his pants and conducted a search, which yielded no incriminating items.
He observed SPO1 Masujer taking two sachets from his own wallet and placing them on a table, followed by a forced pose as a photograph was taken, thereby raising questions about the authenticity of the evidence.

On August 9, 2004, the RTC found Relato guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to life imprisonment, imposing also a fine of P500,000.00 and the forfeiture of all proceeds from the crime.
Relato appealed the conviction on grounds including:

On May 24, 2006, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision, upholding the conviction and giving credence to the trial court’s findings on witness credibility and evidentiary handling.

Whether the statutory rules under Republic Act No. 9165 concerning the chain of custody of confiscated prohibited drugs were properly complied with.
Whether the procedural lapses (e.g., not immediately photographing or marking the seized sachets in the presence of the accused and designated witnesses) compromised the integrity of the evidence.

Whether the lapses in the preservation of the seized evidence created doubt about the identity and integrity of the shabu presented in court.
Whether these lapses warranted the application of the saving mechanism provided in the IRR, given the absence of a credible explanation by the prosecution regarding the lapses.

Whether the failure to establish a proper chain of custody affected the State’s burden to prove the corpus delicti and the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether Relato’s defense of frame-up became plausible in light of the uncertainty regarding the alleged seized evidence.