Case Digest (G.R. No. 182347)
Facts:
On or about 21 October 2002, Emilio Rivera y Cablang alias
Boy
was charged in Criminal Case No. 27778-MN in the RTC of Malabon City, Branch 72, for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 for selling and delivering for consideration one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of white crystalline substance found positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride. At his arraignment on 8 November 2002, he pleaded NOT GUILTY.
The prosecution relied mainly on PO2 Allan Llantino, the designated poseur-buyer, who testified that during a buy-bust operation on 21 October 2002 the accused sold a plastic sachet for P100.00, leading to arrest and turnover of the seized item for laboratory examination; the defense denied the charge and alleged frame-up, while also attacking the custody of the seized drug due to absence in the records of the physical inventory and photographing required by Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. 9165. The RTC convicted him on 2 April 2004, and the Court of Appeals affirmed on 27 November 2007.
Issues:
- Whether the prosecution proved the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt through the testimony of a lone witness and the evidence presented.
- Whether the alleged failure to comply with the Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. 9165 inventory-and-photograph requirement broke the chain of custody so as to warrant acquittal.
Ruling:
The Court sustained the conviction, holding that the prosecution established the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration, and that the transaction was completed through delivery of the drug and receipt of payment. It ruled that PO2 Llantino’s testimony was credible and that the non-presentation of other buy-bust team members was not fatal.
The Court also ruled that the absence of proof of immediate physical inventory and photographing under Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. 9165 was not automatically fatal, because the law’s implementing framework allows non-compliance under justifiable grounds so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item are preserved. It found that the records and evidence showed an unbroken chain of custody and upheld the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 as affirmed by the lower courts.
Ratio:
On the elements, the Court found that the buy-bust operation resulted in a sale in which the poseur-buyer, PO2 Llantino, positively identified the accused and testified to the details of payment, delivery, arrest, and turnover of the seized sachet to the investigator, which was later examined and found positive for shabu. It further held that the testimony of a single credible prosecution witness can suffice when it sufficiently establishes the transaction and when the findings of the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, were not shown to be tainted by glaring errors.
On chain of custody, the Court recognized the statutory requirement of inventory and photographing but emphasized that non-compliance does not void seizure if integrity and evidentiary value are properly preserved under the rule’s proviso, requiring proof of justifiable grounds and preservation of the item’s identity. It ruled that, notwithstanding the complained-of omission, the totality of testimonial and documentary evidence (including the laboratory request and handling of the specimen) supported continuity of the exhibit and the identity of the drug presented at trial, and it treated the frame-up defense as unsupported by clear and convincing evidence.
Doctrine:
- For conviction of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of R.A. 9165, the prosecution must prove concurrence of the elements on the identity of the buyer and seller, object, consideration, delivery, and payment, and the corpus delicti must be established.
- (Get Pro to unlock 4 more doctrines)