Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

G.R. No. 192817 (People of the Philippines v. Angelito Malabanan y Anahan). � Before this Court is an automatic review of the Court of Appeals (CA) 29 December 2009 Decision in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03085.^[1] 

The RTC Ruling 

In its 17 September 2007 Decision,^[2] the Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted accused-appellant of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Accused-appellant was allegedly arrested in flagrante delicto while selling a plastic sachet of shabu. The RTC found that, based on the evidence presented, the following elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were established: (1) the shabu was delivered and sold by accused-appellant to the police officer designated as the poseur-buyer; (2) the object of the sale was 0.06 gram of shabu  valued at P100; and (3) the buyer was Senior Police Officer 4 (SPO4) Jaime Armenta and the seller was accused-appellant Angelito Malabanan. The RTC further ruled that the testimony of the arresting officer deserved faith and credence. The integrity of the chain of custody of the seized drugs was also upheld by the trial court. Accused-appellant was then sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.

The CA Ruling 

On intermediate appellate review, the ruling of the RTC was affirmed. The CA ruled that the positive testimonies of the police officers, coupled with the stipulations of the investigator and the forensic chemist, clearly established the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. Moreover, the chain of custody of the subject drugs was not shown to have been broken.

We now rule on the case on final review.

Our Ruling 

We deny the Petition.

After a careful review of the records of the case, we see no reason to reverse or modify the findings of the RTC, less so in the present case when the said findings were affirmed by the CA.

Accused-appellant attacks the claimed observance of the chain of custody rule. He claims that the prosecution did not prove how the specimens were delivered to the forensic chemist. In addition, he faults the arresting officers for failing to: (1) immediately mark the plastic sachet at the time of the arrest; (2) conduct a physical inventory; and (3) take photos of the confiscated items.

To sustain a conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the corpus delicti referring to the narcotic substance itself^[3] must be established with moral certainty.^[4] It is thus necessary to observe the chain of custody rule, which requires the presentation of the following links, especially in a buy-bust situation: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused-appellant by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover to the investigating officer of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission to the court of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist.^[5] 

In this case, accused-appellant disputes the existence of the third requirement. He stresses that there is an apparent gap in the chain, because there appears to be no evidence to identify the person from whom the forensic chemist received the specimen for examination. In addressing this factual question, albeit generally beyond this Court's jurisdiction,^[6] we quote from the records the following facts already stipulated upon by the parties:^[7]  

That P/Insp. Roberto A. Razon was the one who personally delivered the Request for Laboratory Examination and the specimens subject matter of these cases to the PNP-Central Police District Crime Laboratory Office; (Emphasis supplied.)

Moreover, accused-appellant's assertion is belied by the documentary evidence admitted by the trial court referring to the annotation made in the Request for Laboratory Examination:^[8]

Thus, both the documentary evidence admitted by the courts a quo and the above stipulation constituting a judicial admission^[9] directly disprove accused-appellant's claim that the link between the handling of the marked plastic sachets by the police officers and that by the forensic chemist was unaccounted for.

With respect to the issue of marking, even if the plastic sachets were marked only at the police station, and not at the time of the arrest of the accused-appellant, this Court has recognized that the marking of the seized items upon immediate confiscation even contemplates marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team.^[10] The reason behind this stance is that we are not always looking for a strict step-by-step adherence to the procedural requirements. What is important is to ensure the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items in order to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused- appellant.^[11]

Finally, on the lack of photographs and physical inventory, the facts indeed show that the police officers reneged on complying with the requirements. However, this Court has previously held that the lack of these requirements is not fatal.^[12]  It does not even make the seized items inadmissible; at most, only the issue of weight or probative value is affected.^[13] But given the overwhelming evidence of the prosecution showing before the courts a quo an intact buy-bust operation and a secure post-handling of the confiscated items, the irregularities raised by the accused-appellant do not justify an acquittal. If we were to hold otherwise, the very law that seeks to curb illicit drug activities would be unduly crippled by scrupulous nitpicking. cralaw

WHEREFORE, the 29 December 2009 Decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CR-HC No. 03085 is hereby AFFIRMED.

Very truly yours, 

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta, with Associate Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Stephen C. Cruz concurring.

^[2] Penned by Judge Henri Jean-Paul B. Inting; docketed as Crim. Case Nos. Q-04-126524 to Q-04-126525. 

^[3] People v. Suan, G.R. No. 184546, 22 February 2010, 613 SCRA 366. 

^[4] People v. Honrado, G.R. No. 182197, 27 February 2012. 

^[5] People v. Arriola, G.R. No. 187736, 8 February 2012, citing People v. Kamad, 610 SCRA 295 (2010). 

^[6] People v. Azarraga, G.R. Nos. 187117 and 1871127, 12 October 2011. 

^[7] RTC Order dated 8 February 2006, records, p. 65. 

^[8] Records, p. 111. 

^[9] People v. Bodoso, G.R. No. 188129, 5 July 2010, 623 SCRA 580. 

^[10] Id; Imson v. People, G.R. No. 193003, 13 July 2011, 653 SCRA 826; People v. Unisa, G.R. No. 185721, 28 September 2011, 658 SCRA 305. 

^[11] People v. Domado, G.R. No. 172971, 16 June 20l0, 621 SCRA 73. 

^[12] People v. Campos, G.R.No. 186526, 25 August 2010, 629 SCRA 462. 

^[13] People v. Cardenas, G.R. No. 190342, 2l March 2012, citing Zalameda v. People, 598 SCRA 537 (2009), which in turn cited People v. Del Monte, 552 SCRA. 627 (2008).