Case Digest (G.R. No. 237209)
Facts:
On February 20, 2010, agents of the National Bureau of Investigation conducted a buy‑bust in Alabang, Muntinlupa City that led to the arrest of Catherine Romorosa y Ostoy (accused‑appellant), Mohamad Dampak y Disalo, and Jamil Dampak y Mimbalawag; seized sachets later tested positive for shabu. The Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court convicted the appellant for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, and the Court of Appeals affirmed; the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Did the trial court and the Court of Appeals err in crediting the prosecution’s witnesses despite asserted inconsistencies in the poseur‑buyer’s account?
- Did the prosecution fail to prove the corpus delicti due to alleged gaps in the chain of custody of the seized shabu, particularly the forensic chemist’s failure to turn it over to an evidence custodian?
Ruling:
The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The Court held that the asserted inconsistency in the poseur‑buyer’s testimony was illusory and did not impair his credibility, and that the prosecution established the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt through an unbroken chain of custody.
Ratio:
The Court found that the phrase "close a deal" in the Joint Affidavit referred to consummation during the buy‑bust and was consistent with the poseur‑buyer’s testimony that the confidential informant arranged the transaction, so no fatal contradiction existed and the witness remained credible. Relying on People v. Kamad and related jurisprudence, the Court applied the four essential links for an unbroken chain of custody and concluded these were satisfied; Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 does not mandate an intermediary evidence custodian and direct submission by the forensic chemist is permissible when safeguards (markings, photographs, sealed storage, testimony on custody) are shown.
Doctrine:
- People v. Kamad establishes the four essential links to prove an unbroken chain of custody in buy‑bust cases.
- Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 does not prohibit the forensic chemist from acting as safekeeper or from directly submitting the marked specimen to the court.
- Apparent inconsistencies in a witness’s testimony are immaterial if contextual reading shows harmony and the witness’s credibility remains intact.
- Positive laboratory identification combined with marking, inventory, photographs, secure storage, and testimony on custody suffice to prove the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt.