GR 194580; (August, 2011) (Digest)
G.R. No. 194580 ; August 31, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ADRIANO PASCUA Y CONCEPCION, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
An Information charged accused-appellant Adriano Pascua y Concepcion with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution’s version, as summarized by the Court of Appeals, states that on October 13, 2003, a buy-bust operation was conducted in Meycauayan, Bulacan. PO1 Willie Tadeo acted as poseur-buyer and purchased one plastic sachet of shabu from alias “Joel” (identified as the accused) using marked money. Upon PO1 Tadeo’s pre-arranged signal, the backup team arrested the accused and another person, Robert Carmelo. The seized sachets were marked and submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory, where they tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The defense presented a different version, alleging that accused-appellant was arrested at his home without a warrant, chased, and then brought to the police station where he was framed. He denied the sale and claimed the police demanded money and shabu from him. The Regional Trial Court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of accused-appellant despite the alleged non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 on the chain of custody of the seized drugs and the claim that the conviction was based solely on the testimony of PO1 Tadeo.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals Decision IN TOTO. The Court held that all elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. The testimony of PO1 Tadeo, the poseur-buyer, was clear and credible, establishing the consummated sale. The Court ruled that the chain of custody of the seized drug was sufficiently established. The marked money was presented, the sachet was immediately marked at the scene, and the forensic chemist confirmed the substance was shabu. The Court emphasized that non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 does not automatically render the seizure invalid or the items inadmissible, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by the police officers was not overturned by the defense of denial and frame-up, which the Court found to be unsubstantiated. Thus, the guilt of accused-appellant was proven beyond reasonable doubt.