Title
People vs. Moner y Adam
Case
G.R. No. 202206
Decision Date
Mar 5, 2018
Police conducted a buy-bust operation, arresting Moner for selling shabu. Despite chain of custody deviations, evidence integrity was upheld, affirming his conviction.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 202206)

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

Alleged commission of crime: on or about April 23, 2005 Information filed: April 25, 2005 Arraignment: May 16, 2005 (Moner pleaded not guilty) RTC Joint Decision convicting Moner for sale (and acquitting on possession count): August 4, 2009 Court of Appeals decision affirming RTC: July 27, 2011 Supreme Court decision (appeal dismissed; affirmation): March 5, 2018

Charges, Pleadings and Trial Court Disposition

Criminal Case No. Q-05-133982: Information charging Moner with violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs — 3.91 grams methylamphetamine hydrochloride). Trial court found Moner guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of Php500,000.00. Criminal Case No. Q-05-133983: Charge of violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 (possession) against Moner and co-accused; trial court acquitted them for failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Factual Findings Adopted by the Courts

Prosecution narrative (as found credible by trial court and affirmed on appeal): after obtaining information from Joel Taudil that Moner was a source of shabu, a buy-bust team led by P/C Insp. Cabal organized a controlled purchase. PO2 Panopio acted as poseur-buyer, arrived at Moner’s residence with Taudil, negotiated purchase of five grams at P8,000, then received a plastic sachet from Moner in exchange for marked and boodle money. Upon the pre-arranged signal, arrest was effected; subsequent search of the house revealed other persons re-packing shabu. Confiscated items were turned over at Las Piñas Police Station, marked, inventoried, and submitted for laboratory testing which returned positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride.

Defense Version and Contentions

Defense witnesses (including Moner) claimed no buy-bust occurred; rather the accused and others were preparing for a wedding when armed men in civilian clothes (purportedly police) entered, searched, handcuffed, allegedly planted a sachet, and later extorted money. Defense emphasized inconsistencies in police testimonies, non-presentation of the informant, lack of prior coordination with PDEA, and procedural lapses in handling and documenting seized evidence (alleging noncompliance with statutory inventory and photographing requirements).

Legal Elements and Issues on Appeal

Essential elements for conviction for illegal sale (articulated by the Court): (1) that the sale/transaction took place; (2) that the corpus delicti (the illicit drug) was presented as evidence; and (3) that buyer and seller were identified. Primary appellate issues: credibility of police witnesses; failure to present the informant; whether the buy-bust was properly coordinated with PDEA; and whether noncompliance with RA 9165 requirements (physical inventory, photographing and witnesses in inventory; chain of custody) fatally undermined the prosecution’s case.

Informant and Poseur-Buyer Considerations

The Court reiterated established jurisprudence that the non-presentation of an informant does not automatically vitiate the prosecution if the informant’s identity is not indispensable and security concerns justify confidentiality. In this case the poseur-buyer, PO2 Panopio, testified and other team members witnessed the transaction, so the informant’s absence was not fatal. The Court credited the poseur-buyer’s positive identification of Moner as seller.

Evidence Presented and Laboratory Results

The prosecution exhibited the marked plastic sachet and marked money, and introduced an inventory/receipt showing turnover to the investigator. Specimens were brought to the PNP crime laboratory where testing by the forensic chemist (whose testimony was stipulated) yielded a positive result for methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). The chain of custody record and documentary exhibits were admitted and identified at trial.

Chain of Custody Rule — Statutory Requirements and Definition

The Court cited DDB Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 and Section 21 of RA 9165 (and its IRR) defining “chain of custody” and prescribing that immediately after seizure the apprehending team shall physically inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused (or representative), an elected public official, a DOJ or National Prosecution Service representative, and media — with copies signed and provided. The IRR contains a “saving clause” that noncompliance under justifiable grounds will not automatically render seizures void provided the integrity and evidentiary value of seized items are preserved.

Majority’s Analysis on Substantial Compliance and Admissibility

The Supreme Court majority found substantial compliance with chain of custody requirements. Although the physical inventory and marking were performed at the Las Piñas police station rather than at the place of seizure and certain enumerated witnesses were absent from the inventory, the majority held these deviations were justified by security concerns (the team was operating outside its area and believed lingering would expose them to danger). The Court applied settled precedents (including Palo, Usman, Saraum, Zalameda, and others cited) allowing admission where the integrity and evidentiary value of seized items are shown to be preserved despite procedural infirmities; noncompliance affects weight, not admissibility, absent proof of tampering, switching or mishandling.

Credibility, Inconsistencies and Presumption of Regularity

On witness credibility the Court underscored the trial court’s prerogative in assessing witnesses who were personally observed. Minor inconsistencies in police testimony were characterized as immaterial variances that do not undermine the core narrative; such minor contradictions can, in the Court’s view, even enhance credibility by showing testimony was not rehearsed. Police witnesses are accorded a presumption they performed duties regularly; the accused must present clear and convincing evidence to rebut that presumption. Moner did not meet that burden, and no convincing proof of mishandling, planting, or switching of evidence was shown.

Majority’s Reliance on Constitutional and Procedural Authority

The Court explained that rules governing evidence and procedure fall within the Supreme Court’s power under Article VIII, Section 5(5) of the 1987 Constitution to promulgate rules on pleading, practice and procedure. The chain of custody rule is treated as a procedural evidentiary rule; the judiciary thus has authority to determine its application and the admissibility and weight of evidence in each case.

Dissenting Opinion (Perlas-Bernabe, J.) — Summary of Grounds

The dissent would have granted the appeal and acquitted Moner.

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

    About Privacy Terms