Case Digest (G.R. No. 246577)
Facts:
Accused-appellants Siu Ming Tat and Lee Yoong Hoew were charged with violation of Section 5, in relation to Section 26(b), Article II of R.A. No. 9165, for allegedly selling a heat-sealed sachet containing 426.30 grams of white crystalline substance to a poseur-buyer on July 26, 2012 in Manila, which tested positive for ephedrine. The Regional Trial Court convicted them on November 22, 2016 and sentenced them to life imprisonment and a P500,000 fine each; the Court of Appeals affirmed on October 9, 2018, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Was the conviction for illegal sale under Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 supported by evidence beyond reasonable doubt?
- Was the *corpus delicti* compromised by noncompliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 or defects in the chain of custody?
- Did alleged inconsistencies in prosecution testimony and the appellants' denial/alibi warrant acquittal?
- Is the variance between the drugs allegedly sold (shabu) and the laboratory result (ephedrine) material to the conviction?
Ruling:
The appeal was denied and the Decisions of the Court of Appeals and the RTC were affirmed. The Supreme Court found the elements of illegal sale proven beyond reasonable doubt, held that the chain of custody was intact and the corpus delicti retained evidentiary value, and rejected the defenses of denial and alleged inconsistencies as insufficient to overturn the convictions; the variance between shabu and ephedrine was deemed immaterial.
Ratio:
The Court emphasized that the illegal sale was consummated by the delivery of the marked sachet to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of marked money, together with positive in-court identification of the appellants and presentation of the seized substance as evidence. The prosecution established the four conventional links of the chain of custody—seizure and marking, turnover to the investigating officer, turnover to the forensic chemist, and turnover to the court—so the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti were preserved; police testimony enjoyed the presumption of regularity, and mere denial or alibi without clear and convincing proof could not overcome that presumption; a minor variance between the drug alleged and the drug proven does not vitiate the conviction, per People v. Noque y Gomez.
Doctrine:
- The elements of illegal sale under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 are the identity of buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and delivery and payment.
- The dangerous drug seized is the *corpus delicti* and its identity and integrity must be shown beyond reasonable doubt.
- The prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of custody through seizure/marking, turnover to the investigator, turnover to the forensic chemist, and submission to the court.
- Police officers’ testimony is presumed regular and credible absent proof of ill motive or material deviation from procedure.
- Mere denial or alibi is weak evidence and requires clear and convincing proof to rebut the presumption of regularity.
- A variance between the drug alleged in the Information and the drug proven at trial is immaterial if both are dangerous drugs, and does not invalidate conviction.