G.R. No. 231917 - People vs. Sarip y Bantog

On May 19, 2011, at around 6:00 p.m., a confidential informant reported to the City Special Operations Group (CSOG) that an individual was selling shabu at Barangay 31, Santo NiAo, Cagayan de Oro City.
Acting on the tip, Police Senior Inspectors Gilbert Rolen and Ludwig Charles Espera formed a buy-bust team and coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) to secure a pre-operational number for the operation.
A P50.00 bill was prepared as marked money, and PO2 Jerry Michael B. Baranda was designated as the team leader. The confidential informant was to act as the poseur-buyer.

Around 8:00 p.m. on the same day, the team—comprising PO2 Baranda, PO2 Sangkula Hussein, SPO1 Angelito Baguilid, and PO1 Reymund Seno—arrived at Barangay 31 beside the Pearlmont Hotel in an unmarked Mitsubishi Adventure.
PO2 Baranda and PO2 Hussein transferred to a “trisikad” while the other team members remained in the vehicle, positioning themselves approximately 10–12 meters away at a well-lit area.
At the designated meeting spot, the confidential informant approached the appellant and initiated a transaction by exchanging the marked money for a transparent plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance.

Upon receiving a pre-arranged signal (the informant removed his black cap), the buy-bust team immediately approached the appellant who attempted to resist, leading to a scuffle during which the appellant was subdued.
The poseur-buyer turned the plastic sachet over to PO2 Baranda, who secured it by placing it into his pocket after cuffing the appellant and informing him of his rights.
During the body search, PO2 Baranda retrieved the marked money from the appellant’s pocket.

Due to the presence of onlookers, the team decided to conduct the marking and inventory of the seized items at their office rather than at the scene.
At the office, PO2 Baranda marked the plastic sachet with his initials ("JB"), prepared the evidence for laboratory examination, requested a drug test on the appellant, and checked for the presence of ultraviolet markings on him to establish contact with the marked money.
Subsequently, the appellant and the sealed sachet were brought to the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory Office (RCLO), where laboratory tests confirmed that the sachet contained shabu (methamphetamine hydrochloride) and that both hands of the appellant carried ultraviolet fluorescent powder, indicating handling of the marked money.

An Information was filed against the appellant for violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, charging him with the illegal sale or offer to sell shabu in exchange for marked money.
Appellant pleaded “not guilty” and claimed that on the night in question, he had merely stepped out to buy dinner at a nearby carinderia near his uncle’s house when he was accosted by two men (identified later as PO2 Baranda and PO2 Hussein).
He contended that he was wrongfully detained, taken to a service vehicle (a white Toyota Revo), and extorted for money for his release, while evidence such as a photograph taken at the police station and his hand being subjected to ultraviolet examination was admitted.

On August 19, 2014, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 25, Misamis Oriental, Cagayan de Oro City, convicted the appellant beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00.
The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the appellant’s appeal on October 7, 2016, affirming the RTC’s decision.
Subsequent to a motion for reconsideration, the appellant elevated the case to the Supreme Court, raising issues regarding the evidence and the conduct of the buy-bust operation.

The appellant argued that the prosecution did not call the confidential informant/poseur-buyer, who was the best witness to establish the transaction.
The defense maintained that the testimonies of the police officers regarding the role of the poseur-buyer amounted to hearsay and were insufficient to prove the sale.

The appellant contended that the chain of custody for the seized shabu was not preserved as required by law.
This issue questioned whether the evidence’s integrity was compromised by procedural lapses during the post-arrest inventory and marking process.

The appellant claimed that a bona fide buy-bust operation was never actually conducted.
He argued that the failure to strictly observe the requirements of Section 21 (as amended) of R.A. No. 9165 invalidated the seizure and subsequent prosecution.