8/30/2020 G.R. No.

206738

Today is Sunday, August 30, 2020

Constitution Statutes Executive Issuances Judicial Issuances Other Issuances Jurisprudence International Legal Resources AUSL Exclusive

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 206738 December 11, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
ERLINDA MALI y QUIMNO a.k.a. "Linda", Accussed-Appellant.

DECISION

REYES, J.:

For review is the Decision1 dated January 31, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00863-MIN
which affirmed the Decision2 dated August 11, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Zamboanga City, Branch
13, in Criminal Case No. 5228 (20390), convicting Erlinda Mali y Quimno a.k.a. "Linda" (accused-appellant) of
illegally selling methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.

The Antecedents

On January 26, 2004, a buy-bust operation was carried out in Sucabon,Zone II, Zamboanga City, by the members of
the Task Group Tumba Droga, now the Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Force,3 of the Philippine National
Police (PNP) inZamboanga City. The operation led to the arrest of the accused-appellant4 who was charged of
violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Actof 2002,
under the following criminal information, viz:

That on or about January 26, 2004, in the City of Zamboanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law to sell, deliver, transport, distribute or give
away to another any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, SELL and DELIVER to
PO1 HildaD.Montuno, a member of the PNP, who acted as buyer, one (1) small size heat-sealed transparent plastic
packweighing 0.0188 grams of white crystalline substance which when subjected to qualitative examination, gave
positive result to the tests for METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (shabu), knowing [the]same to be a
dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW.5

On March 17, 2004, an ocular inspection was conducted, whereby the shabustated in the criminal information was
presented before the RTC and the accused-appellant by the Forensic Chemist of the PNP Regional Crime
Laboratory, Zamboanga City, Police Chief Inspector (PC/Insp.) Mercedes D. Diestro (Diestro). The presentation was
witnessed by a representative from the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, Senior Police Officer (SPO) 4
Bonifacio Morados.6 In the ensuing arraignment, the accused-appellantentered a "Not Guilty" plea. Thereafter, pre-
trial and trial were held.

The prosecution presented the testimoniesof the police officers whoparticipatedinthebuy-bust operation,Police
Officer(PO) 1 Hilda D. Montuno (Montuno) and SPO 1 Amado Mirasol, Jr. (Mirasol), as well as the investigator in
charge of the case, PO3 Efren A. Gregorio(Gregorio), and PC/Insp.Ramon Manuel, Jr. (Manuel), Officer-in-Charge
of the PNP Crime Laboratory Office.

Documentary and object evidence were likewise submitted, such as: Request for Laboratory Examination,7
Chemistry Report No. D-024-2004,8 Affidavit of Poseur-buyer,9 Affidavit of Arresting Officer,10 Complaint Assignment
Sheet No. 1234,11 Acknowledgment Receipt of the buy-bust money,12 Case Report,13 Forwarding Report,14 one
piece small size heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing shabu,15 six strips of folded aluminum foils16 and
marked money consisting of one ₱100.00 bill with serial number KM67878817.

Taken collectively, the foregoing evidence showed that:

On January 26, 2004, at around 1:00p.m., a confidential informant arrived at the Zamboanga City Police Station and
reported to PO1 Montuno about illegal drug activities in Sucabon, Zone II, by a woman known as "Linda". PO1
Montuno forthwith relayed the information to Police Senior Inspector (PS/Insp.)Ricardo M. Garcia (Garcia) who,
thereafter, summoned the members of the Task Group Tumba Droga for a briefing. They came up with an
entrapment plan to be staged by a buy-bust team composed of PS/Insp. Garcia,SPO1Mirasol, PO2 Rudy
Deleña,PO2 Ronald Cordero, and PO1 Montuno, who was designated as the poseur-buyer.18 PS/Insp. Garcia
prepared and gave Montuno ₱100.00 as marked money19 with serialnumberKM678788for whichshe signed an
Acknowledgment Receipt.20

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_206738_2013.html 1/9
8/30/2020 G.R. No. 206738
At around 2:15 p.m., the team proceeded to Sucabon on board an L-300 van which they parked in front of the
Bureau of Fire before walking towards the inner portion of Sucabon. PO1 Montuno and the informant sauntered in
front of the group with SPO1 Mirasol trailing behind from a distanceof about eight to ten meters while the rest of the
team followed.21

When they reached the target area, theinformant pointed to a lady in brown sleeveless shirt and pants waiting by a
table and identified her as Linda.22 PO1 Montuno and the informant approached Lindawho,upon recognizing the
latter, asked how much they intendedto buy. PO1 Montuno answered "pisolang", which in street lingo means one
hundred pesos. Linda then took out a small transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance from
her pocket and handed the same to PO1 Montuno, whointurngave the ₱100.00 marked money.23 Immediately
thereafter, PO1 Montuno executed the pre-arranged signal by extending her left hand sideward.24

Upon seeing PO1 Montuno’s signal, SPO1 Mirasol, who positioned himself at a nearby billiard hall, approached
them.25 PO1 Montunointroduced herself as a police officer to Lindaand placed her under arrest by asking her to sit.
She then frisked Linda andwas able to recover from her a small plastic sachet containing six strips of aluminum foil.
Afterwards, she informed Linda of her violation and apprised her of her constitutional rights.26

Linda was taken to the Zamboanga City Police Station where it was learned that her full name is Erlinda Mali
yQuimno.27 PO1 Montuno marked the plastic sachet suspected as containing shabuwith her initials "HM" as well as
the sachet containing strips of aluminum foil. She also wrote her initials "HDM" on the ₱100.00 marked money.28

PO1 Montuno turned over the confiscated items, the marked money and thepersonof accused-appellantto PO3
Gregorio.29 Upon receipt, PO3 Gregorio wrote his initials "EG" on the plastic sachet suspected as containing
shabuand "EAG" on the other sachet of aluminum foil strips.30

Subsequently, PO3 Gregorio prepared the Request for Laboratory Examination and personally brought the same
together with the seized evidence to thePNP Crime Laboratory Office.31 Forensic chemist, PC/Insp. Diestro
conducted a laboratory examinationon the specimen subject of the request and it tested positive for the presence of
methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu" as shown in Chemistry Report No. D-024-2004.32

PC/Insp. Diestro was unable to take the witness stand because at the time of trial, she was on official study leave in
Manila. Instead, it was PC/Insp. Manuel as the Officer-in-Chargeof the Crime Laboratory Office who brought a copy
of the chemistry report to the court. The actual evidence custodian of the report isPO1 Christopher Paner who was,
however, dispatched to Basilan hence unavailable to testify.33

For her part, the accused-appellant, interposed the defense of denial and frame-up. She and the other defense
1âwphi1

witness, Kalingalang Ismang(Ismang), claimed that there was no buy-bust operation actually conducted by thepolice
and the prohibited drugpresented as evidence was planted. They narrated that at around 2:00 p.m. of January 26,
2004, they were outside the accused-appellant’s house in Sucabon playing Rami-rami,a cards game, with a certain
Golpe. During the game, the accused-appellant left to urinate and when she came back, a woman arrived and
asked Ismangwho Erlinda was. In reply, Ismangpointed tothe accused-appellant who just remained silent.34

The woman, who was with four male companions in civilian clothing but armed, then approached the accused-
appellant, held her and brought her inside her house. The woman asked the accused-appellant who was
sellingshabu. The accused-appellant replied thatshe does not know. Thereafter, the woman’s companions searched
the accused-appellant’s house but found nothing. They then brought the accused-appellant to the police station in
Zamboanga City where she was again questioned about the peddler of shabu to which she gave the same reply.
She was thereafter detained and then brought to the Hall of Justice.35

Ruling of the RTC

The RTC accorded more credence to the straightforward and consistent testimony of PO1 Montuno which proved all
the elements for illegal sale of drugs. Her testimony also showed that the entrapment operation passed the objective
test as she was able to narrate the complete details of the transaction, from how she acted as a buyer, to the
consummation of the sale and the accused-appellant’s eventual arrest. The RTC also noted that in view of the lack
of a showing that the arresting officers were impelled by evil motive to indict the accused-appellant, they are
presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner and as such their positive testimonies carry more
evidentiary value than the accused-appellant’s bare denial, an inherently weak and self-serving defense.
Accordingly, the accused-appellant was convicted of the crime charged and sentenced as follows in the RTC
Decision36 dated August 11, 2010, viz:

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, this Court finds ERLINDA MALI y QUIMNO guilty beyond reasonable
doubt for violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and
pay a fine of five hundred thousand pesos (₱500,000[.00]) without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

The methamphetamine hydrochloride used as evidence in this case is hereby ordered confiscated and the Clerk of
Court is directed to turn over the same to the proper authorities for disposition.

SO ORDERED.37

Ruling of the CA

On appeal to the CA, the accused-appellant argued that the totality of the evidence for the prosecution did not
support a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to the following errors, viz: (1) no buy-bust operation
transpired and the prohibited drug presented by the prosecution as subject of the alleged illegal sale was planted;
(2) the arresting officers did not comply with the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 when they
failed to mark, inventory and photograph the prohibited drug allegedly seized from her; (3) the chemistry report

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_206738_2013.html 2/9
8/30/2020 G.R. No. 206738
wasnot properly identified during trial by the forensic chemist; and (4) no evidence was presented asto what
happened to the sachet from the time it was submitted to the crime laboratory until it was presented in court.

In its Decision38 dated January 31, 2013, the CA denied the appeal and concurred with the RTC’s findings and
conclusions. The CA upheld the veracity of the buy-bust operation. Anent the supposed non-compliance with the
marking, inventory and photography requirements in R.A. No. 9165, the CA remarked that the accused-appellant is
considered to have waived any objections on such matters since she failed toraise the same before the RTC. At any
rate, non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is not necessarily fatal to the admissibility of theseized
prohibited drug because the apprehending team was able to preserve their evidentiaryvalue and integrity
whentheyimmediately turned over the effects of the crime and the buy-bust money to the police investigator on the
same day. This, the CA concluded, manifests the prudence of the arresting officers in securing the integrity and
probative value of the items confiscated from the accused appellant. Moreover, non-compliance with Section 21 of
R.A. No. 9165 concerns not the admissibility of evidence but rather its evidentiary weight or probative value, which,
in this case was correctly ruled by the RTC to heavily favor the prosecution.

The CA’s judgment is now subject to the Court’s automatic review.39 In a Resolution40 dated July 8, 2013, the Court
required the parties to file their supplemental briefs. Instead of so filing, however, the parties manifested that they
are instead adopting their respective Briefs before the CA where their legal arguments and positions havealready
been fully expounded and amplified.41 The Manifestations are hereby noted and we shall resolve accordingly.

The Issue

Forthe Court’s resolutioniswhether or not the guilt of the accused-appellant for illegal sale of methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabuwas proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court’s Ruling

We affirm the accused-appellant’s conviction and the penalties meted her.

Illegal sale of prohibited drugs, like shabu, is committed upon the consummation of the sale transaction which
happens at the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. If a police officer goes through the operation as
a buyer, the crime is consummated when he makes an offer to buy that is accepted by the accused, and there is an
ensuing exchangebetween them involving the delivery of the dangerous drugs to the police officer.42

In any case, the successful prosecution of the offense must be anchoredona proofbeyond reasonable
doubtoftwoelements,to wit: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, theidentity of the object and the consideration
of the sale; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and of the payment for the thing. What is material is the proof
showing that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the thing sold as
evidence of the corpus delicti.43

The confluence of the above requisites is unmistakable from the testimony of the poseur-buyer herself, PO1
Montuno, who positively testified that the illegal sale actually took place when she gave the ₱100.00 marked money
to the accused-appellant in exchange for the shabu, thus:

PROSECUTOR ORILLO:

xxxx

Q:And, what happened next, after the briefing, which according to you, took for, more or less, thirty (30) minutes?

A:We proceeded, at or about 2:15, to the area at Sucabon.44

x xxx

Q:So, what happened next?

A:When we reachednearthe area, we stopped, because the Informant pinpointed to me that "the lady waiting there,
at the wooden table, wearing brown sleeveless shirt and pants is your target".

xxxx

Q:After the Informant pointed to you the place where that certainLinda was, what did you do next?

A:We approached Linda.

xxxx

Q:So, when you approached, you and the Informant approached Linda, what happened next?

A:Since the Informant and Linda, they know each other already, it was Linda who said, "cuanto tu compra?"("how
much will you buy?")

Q:And, then?

A:And, then, I replied, "₱100.00"; "piso lang".

Q:At that time, when your Informant was conversing with Linda, how far were you from Linda and the Informant?

A:More or less, myself to the Stenographer’s table (estimated at 1 ½ meters)

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_206738_2013.html 3/9
8/30/2020 G.R. No. 206738
Q:Now, what happened next, Madam Witness, after you replied, "piso lang"?

A:Then she got something from her pocket (witness demonstrated by gesturing as if getting something from her
right front pocket).

Q:And, then, what happened next, after she got something from her pocket?

A:She gave it to me; the suspect gave it to me, and she demanded for money.

Q:What was that something given?

A:Small heat-sealed transparent plastic containing suspected shabu.

Q:And, you said, she demanded for the money?

A:Yes, Sir.

Q:What did you do?

A:I gave it to her.

Q:How did you give it?

A;When I got the shabu, I inspected it, I tried to check, then, I gave the money to her (witness is demonstrating by
motioning the act of giving money, pretending to hold something and extending her right hand forward).

PROSECUTOR ORILLO:

Q:And, is that money the money, the marked money that was given to you by P/S Insp[.]Garcia during the briefing?

A:Yes, Sir.

Q:What does it consist of?

A:It is a ₱100.00 bill.

Q:And, you gave it to Linda?

A:Yes, Sir.

Q:The marked money?

A:Yes, Sir.

Q:Did she receive it?

A:Yes, Sir.45[sic]

The straightforward testimony of PO1 Montuno about the details of her transactionwiththe accused-appellant passed
the"objective"testin buy-bust operations. It is clear from her narration that the following elements occurred: the initial
contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the
consideration and the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale.46

The Court cannot accord merit to the accused-appellant’s claim that the foregoing events did not take place
because she was actually framed-up. Such argument brings to the fore the appreciation by the trial court of the
credibility of witnesses, a matter it is most competent to perform having had the first hand opportunity to observe
and assess the conduct and demeanor of witnesses.47 Settled is the rule that the evaluation by the trial court of the
credibility of witnesses is entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal.48

By way of exception, such findings will be re-opened for review only upon a showing of highly
meritoriouscircumstances such as when the court’s evaluation was reached arbitrarily, or when the trial court
overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied certain facts or circumstances of weight and substance which, if
considered, would affect the result of the case.49 However, none of these circumstancesobtain in the present case
and thus, there is no compelling reason for the Court to review or overturn the RTC’s factual findings and evaluation
of the testimony of witnesses.

At any rate, we have examined the records ofthe case and found that the prosecution’s narration vividly replicates
the actual event that preceded the accused-appellant’s arrest and indictment.

Moreover, allegations of frame-up aresusceptible to fabrication and are thus assessed with caution by courts. To
substantiate such defense, the evidence must be clear and convincing and must show that the members of the buy-
bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty otherwise the police
officers’ testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit.50 Here, the accused-appellantdid not even ascribe
any illmotive to PO1 Montuno that could have induced her to falsely testify against the former. Neither do the
records indicate any distorted sense of duty on the part of the buy-bust team. Thus, with corroborative documentary
evidence to back up the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, the presumption that PO1 Montuno and the rest of
the buy-bust team regularly performed their duties must be upheld.

The courts a quo correctly rejected the accused-appellant’s contention that the chain of custody rule was not
fulfilled.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_206738_2013.html 4/9
8/30/2020 G.R. No. 206738
First, the fact that PO1 Montuno marked the plastic sachet seized from the accused-appellant at the ZamboangaCity
Police Station and notat the crime scene did not impair its admissibility as evidence or the integrity of the chain of
custody. As clarified in People v. Angkob,51 marking upon "immediate"confiscation of the prohibited items
contemplates even that which was done at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team.52

Theallegation that noinventory of theitemsseizedfromtheaccused-appellant was made is belied bythe

ComplaintAssignment SheetNo. 1234 signed by PS/Insp. Garcia enumerating the items confiscated from the
accused-appellant during the buy-bust operation: "one (1) small size heat sealed transparent plastic pack containing
suspected shabu(methamphetamine hydrochloride), markedmoney of one hundred peso bill with SN KM678788 and
six(6) strips/fol[d]ed aluminum foil."53

Anent the failure of the buy-bust team to take photographs of the confiscated plastic sachet of shabu, it must be
noted that while Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. No. 916554 dictates the procedural safeguards that must
be observed in the handling and custody of confiscated drugs, the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) of the
law provides for a qualification such that non-compliance withthe procedure will not nullify the confiscation of the
drugs, thus:

(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in thepresence of the accused or the person/s from
whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the
media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies
of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be
conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of
the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further that non-
compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of
the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such
seizuresof and custody over said items[.]55 (Emphasis ours)

In the recent People v. Cardenas,56 we underscored the provisoby stressing that R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR do not
require strict compliance with the chain of custody rule:

The arrest of an accused will not be invalidated and the items seized from him rendered inadmissible on the sole
ground of non-compliance with Sec. 21, Article II of RA 9165. We have emphasized that what is essential is "the
preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the
determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused."

Briefly stated, non-compliance with the procedural requirements under RA 9165 and its IRR relative to the custody,
photographing, and drug-testing of the apprehended persons, is not a serious flaw that canrender void the seizures
and custody of drugs in a buy-bust operation.57 (Emphasis supplied)

The failure to photograph the confiscated sachet of shabuis not fatal to thetotality of the evidence for the
prosecution. Such fact is immaterial to the legitimacy of the buy-bust operation for it is enough that it is established
that the operation was indeed conducted and that the identity of the seller and drugs subject of the sale are
proved.58

Second, the failure of the forensic chemist to testify in court did not undermine the case for the prosecution. The
non-presentation of the forensic chemist in illegal drug cases is an insufficient cause for acquittal. This is because
the corpus delicti in criminal cases on prohibited drugs has nothing to do with the testimony of the laboratory
analyst.59

The corpus delictiin dangerous drugs cases constitutes the dangerous drug itself. To sustain conviction, its identity
must be established in that the substance bought during the buy-bust operation is the same substance offered in
court as exhibit. The chain of custody requirement performs this function as it ensures that unnecessary doubts
concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.60

Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 which implements R.A. No. 9165 defines
"chain of custody" as follows:

"Chain of Custody"means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled
chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of
seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such
record of movements and custody of seized itemshall include the identity and signature of the person who held
temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of
safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition[.]

In People v. Arriola,61 we enumerated the different links that the prosecution must establish with respect to thechain
of custody in a buy-bust operation, to wit:(1)the seizure and marking,if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from
the accused by the apprehending officer; (2)the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the
investigating officer; (3)the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for
laboratory examination; and (4)the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic
chemist to the court.62

Tested against the foregoing guidelines, the Court finds that the prosecution adequately established that there was
no break in the chain of custody over the shabuseized from the accused-appellant.

During the buy-bust operation, the accused-appellant gave PO1 Montuno a small transparent plastic sachet
containing white crystalline substance in exchangeforthe latter’s paymentof ₱100.00.63

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_206738_2013.html 5/9
8/30/2020 G.R. No. 206738
After arresting the accused-appellant, PO1 Montuno heldon to the confiscated plastic sachet until they reached the
Zamboanga City Police Station where she marked the same with her initials "HM".64 Thereat, an inventory of the
items seized from the accused-appellant, including the small transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline
substance, was also made in the Complaint Assignment Sheet signed by the team leader of Task Force Tumba
Droga, PS/Insp. Garcia.65

Thereafter, PO1 Montuno turned over the marked plastic sachet to the investigating officer,66 PO3 Gregorio, who in
turn, also wrote his initials "EG" thereon.67

Within the same day, PO3 Gregorio prepared the Request for Laboratory Examination and personally brought the
marked plastic sachet to the PNP Crime Laboratory Office where it was received by PO2 Danilo Cabahug.68 Based
on her Chemistry Report No. D-024-2004, forensic chemist, PC/Insp. Diestro received the plastic sachet with
marking EG HM and examined itscontents which testedpositive for the presenceof shabu.69

Lastly, the same small transparent plastic sachet with markings EG HM and the white crystalline substance it
contains were identified in open court by PO1 Montuno and she confirmed that the marking she placed at the police
station is the same marking on the plastic sachet presented as evidence in court, viz:

PROSECUTOR ORILLO:

xxxx

Q How about the shabu, which you said, you bought from the accused, and can you still identify it?

A Yes, because I placed my marking before turning it over.

Q Will you describe to this Honorable Court the condition of this item?

A A very small heat-sealed plastic sachet.

Prosecutor Orillo:

Q I am showing to you, Madam Witness, a small heat-sealed transparentplastic pack containing shabu, will you go
over this and tell the Honorable Court what is this, in relation to the shabu that you bought from the accused, using
the marked money?

A This is the very one, because I placed marking on it, the one I bought from the suspect.

Q And, you said, you placed your marking on it?

A Yes, Sir.

Q When you turned it over to your Police Station?

A Yes, Sir.

Q Where is your marking?

A These letters, HM; this is covered by the masking tape (witness pointing to the initial "HM", where "H" is covered
by the white masking tape).70

The details by which PO1 Montuno was able to identify her markings leave no room for doubt that indeed, the heat-
sealed plastic sachet of shabu presented during trial was the exact item sold to her by the accused-appellant during
the buy-bust operation. As a matter of fact, even during cross-examination, PO1 Montuno was able to declare
another distinct feature of the marking she placed on the confiscated sachet containing shabu amidst rigid cross-
examination by the defense, thus:

ATTY. TALIP:

xxxx

Q If shown to you another very orsmall sachet of about the same size with the same marking, HM, would you know
the difference between one to the other?

A Yes, Ma’am, after we placed the marking, we brought it already to the crime laboratory.

Q Were you the one who brought it?

A No, Ma’am.

Q You have no knowledge of that?

A As far as the purpose of the investigation only.

Q Exactly, that's why I am asking you, because your knowledge of the sachet only stops there, on the sachet with
marking HM. So, I am asking you, if shown another set of sachet of about the same size with the same marking,
would you be able to distinguish one from the other?

A Yes, it depends on the marking.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_206738_2013.html 6/9
8/30/2020 G.R. No. 206738
Q Similar marking, HM; anyone could write those letters.

A Because I am particular with my marking, because I wrote it with a blue pilot pen.71

Indeed, POI Montuno's meticulous identification of the small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing
shabu precludes any misgivings of tampering from the time it was submitted to the crime laboratory until it was
presented in court.

All told, there exists no reason for the Court to overturn the courts a quo in finding the accused-appellant guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal sale of shabu as defined and penalized in Section 5, Article II
ofR.A. No. 9165.72

Pursuant to the same provision, the R TC and the CA were correct in imposing the penalty of life imprisonment and
₱500,000.00 fine upon the accused-appellant.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated January 31, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-
HC No. 00863-MIN is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Chief Justice
Chairperson

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO LUCAS P. BERSAMIN

Associate Justice Associate Justice

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.

Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Chief Justice

Footnotes
1
Penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, with Associate Justices Edgardo T. Lloren and Henri Jean
Paul B. Inting, concurring; CA rollo, pp. 107-119.
2
Issued by Presiding Judge Eric D. Elumba; id. at 33-42.
3
TSN, May 10, 2005, p. 8.
4
Affidavits of Police Officers Hilda Montuno and Amado Mirasol, Jr.; records, pp. 4-5.
5
Id. at 1.
6
RTC Order dated March 17, 2004;id. at 11.
7
Exhibits Folder, Exhibit "A".
8
Id., Exhibit "C".
9
Id., Exhibit "D".
10
Id., Exhibit "E".
11
Id., Exhibit "F’.
12
Id., Exhibit "I".
13
Id., Exhibit "J".
14
Id., Exhibit "K".
15
Submitted to the custody of the RTC for safekeeping and final disposition; see Certification dated October
11, 2010 by Branch Clerk of Court Maricel B. Lahi;id., Exhibit "B".
16
Submitted to the custody of the RTC for safekeeping and final disposition; id., Exhibit "G".
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_206738_2013.html 7/9
8/30/2020 G.R. No. 206738
17
Submitted to the custody of the RTC for safekeeping and final disposition; id., Exhibit "H".
18
TSN, May 10, 2005, pp. 10-14, 64-67.
19
Id. at 14.
20
Exhibits Folder, Exhibit "I".
21
TSN, May 10, 2005, pp. 16-17, 69-70.
22
Id. at 20.
23
Id. at 22-24.
24
Id. at 15, 25, 68-69.
25
Id. at 73-77.
26
Id. at 25-26.
27
Id. at 31.
28
Id. at 30, 32-36.
29
Id. at 30.
30
TSN, May 11, 2005, pp. 6-14.
31
Id. at 17-18.
32
Exhibits Folder, Exhibit "C".
33
TSN, March 16, 2005, pp. 5-10.
34
TSN, November 11, 2009, pp. 4-8; TSN, November 12, 2009, pp. 3-6.
35
TSN, November 12, 2009, pp. 6-9, 21.
36
CA rollo, pp. 33-42.
37
Id. at 42.
38
Id. at 107-119.
39
Pursuant to People v. Mateo, G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433SCRA 640, 653-658.
40
Rollo, p. 23.
41
Id.at 24-26, 35-36.
42
People v. Bartolome, G.R. No 191726, February 6, 2013, 690 SCRA 159, 167, citing People v. Unisa, G.R.
No. 185721, September 28, 2011, 658 SCRA 305, 324-325.
43
People v. Brainer, G.R. No. 188571, October 10, 2012, 683 SCRA 505, 517.
44
TSN, May 10, 2005, p. 15.
45
Id. at15, 20-24.
46
In People v. Doria, this Court laid down the objective test in evaluating buy-bust operations:

We therefore stress that the "objective"test in buy-bust operations demands that the details of the
purported transaction must be clearly and adequately shown. This must start from the initial contact
between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the
consideration until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale.
361 Phil. 595, 621 (1999).
47
People v. De Jesus, G.R. No. 191753, September 17, 2012, 680 SCRA 680, 687, citing People v. Bautista,
G.R. No. 191266, June 6, 2011, 650 SCRA 689, 700.
48
People v. Reynaldo "Andy" Somoza y Handaya, G.R. No. 197250, July 17, 2013.
49
People v. De Jesus, supra note 47.
50
People v. Brainer, supra note 43, at 522.
51
G.R.No. 191062, September 19, 2012, 681 SCRA 414.
52
Id. at 426.
53
Exhibits Folder, Exhibit "F".
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_206738_2013.html 8/9
8/30/2020 G.R. No. 206738
54
Sec.21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant
Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia
and/or Laboratory Equipment. –The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant
sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper
disposition in the following manner:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after
seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused
or theperson/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public
official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;

xxxx
55
IRR of R.A. No. 9165, Article II, Section 21.
56
G.R. No. 190342, March 21, 2012, 668 SCRA 827.
57
Id. at 837, citing People v. Ara, G.R. No. 185011, December 23, 2009, 609 SCRA 304, 325.
58
Imson v. People, G.R. No. 193003, July 13, 2011, 653 SCRA 826, 835, citing People v. Campos, G.R. No.
186526, August 25, 2010, 629 SCRA 462, 468.
59
People v. Quebral, G.R. No. 185379, November 27, 2009, 606 SCRA 247, 255.
60
People v. Brainer, supra note 43, at 523-524.
61
G.R. No. 187736, February 8, 2012, 665 SCRA 581.
62
Id. at 598.
63
TSN, May 10, 2005, pp. 23-24.
64
Id. at 30, 54-55.
65
Exhibits Folder, Exhibit "F".
66
TSN, May 10, 2005, p. 30.
67
TSN, May 11, 2005, pp. 10-12.
68
Id. at 17-18.
69
Exhibits Folder, Exhibit "C".
70
TSN, May 10, 2005, pp. 32-34.
71
Id. at 56-57.
72
Sec. 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous
Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals.-The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a
fine ranging from Five Hundred Thousand pesos (₱500,000.00) to Ten Million pesos (₱10,000,000.00) shall
be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver,
give away to another, distribute dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all
species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such
transactions.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_206738_2013.html 9/9