G.R. No. 186134 - People vs. Roa y Villaluz

On the evening of 5 September 2003, the Quezon City Police District (QCPD) received intelligence from an informant that Joel Roa was allegedly peddling shabu along Senatorial Road in Barangay Batasan Hills.
Acting on this information, QCPD Chief Superintendent Raymund Esquival organized a buy-bust operation headed by a designated poseur–buyer, Police Officer (PO2) Joel Galacgac, together with other police operatives (SPO1 Rodolfo Limin, SPO2 Cesar Nano, and SPO1 Michael Fernandez).
The team arrived at the target area around 12:30 in the morning of 6 September 2003 and, with the assistance of the informant (the “asset”), proceeded towards the appellant’s residence.

Upon arrival at the appellant’s house, the informant entered and emerged shortly with Joel Roa, introducing PO2 Galacgac as a prospective buyer.
The appellant handed over one (1) small plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance, purported to be shabu, in exchange for a marked P100.00 bill.
Following a prearranged signal (Galacgac scratching his head), the rest of the team rapidly closed in to arrest the appellant.
During the subsequent frisking, two (2) additional sachets of the same substance were recovered from the appellant’s right front pocket.

The seized sachets were individually marked by the police officers—PO2 Galacgac marking the sachet from the transaction and SPO1 Limin marking the two retrieved during the frisk.
The marked evidence was then transferred to their investigator, PO3 Diosdado Rocero, who coordinated with forensic chemist Police Inspector (P/Insp.) Leonard Arban for a confirmatory drug examination.
P/Insp. Arban’s test yielded a positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride, confirming that the substance was indeed shabu.
The chain of custody was maintained from the moment of seizure during the buy-bust operation up to the presentation of the evidence in court.

Criminal Case No. Q-03-120826 for violating Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 (sale of dangerous drugs).
Criminal Case No. Q-03-120827 for violating Section 11 of the same law (possession of dangerous drugs).

In a joint trial, the appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges.
On 23 February 2007, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 82, Quezon City rendered a decision convicting the appellant beyond reasonable doubt:

For sale, sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine of P500,000.00.
For possession, sentenced to an indeterminate imprisonment of not less than 12 years and 1 day up to 14 years, with a fine of P300,000.00.

The trial court’s decision was based on the testimonies of the police operatives and the unbroken chain of custody of the seized substances.

On appeal, the appellant argued that he was not caught in flagrante delicto but was instead the victim of a police frame-up.
He claimed that on the morning of 6 September 2003, while eating inside his house, four individuals (allegedly QCPD officers) suddenly barged in and arrested him without any valid reason.
The appellant further alleged that he was coerced to produce P50,000.00 for his release, and that the QCPD had fabricated the charges against him.
In support of his contention, he pointed out the lack of coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) and the absence of prior surveillance before the buy-bust operation, arguing that these deficiencies undermined the legitimacy of the operation.
Additionally, he argued that the evidence suffered from a procedural defect since the seized shabu was not photographed or formally inventoried pursuant to Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 3, Series of 1979.

Whether the alleged irregularities in the conduct of the buy-bust operation — specifically, the absence of PDEA coordination and prior surveillance — were sufficient to vitiate the legitimacy of the operation and nullify the chain of custody.

Consideration of whether such operational lapses impact the presumption of regularity afforded to police officers during buy-bust operations.

Whether the failure to photograph and make an inventory of the seized drugs, as purportedly required by Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 3 (a regulation later superseded by Section 21 of RA 9165), rendered the evidence inadmissible or insufficient to establish the corpus delicti.

Evaluation of the chain of custody and overall integrity of the evidence despite the perceived procedural omissions.