117. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.BIENVENIDO MIRANDA y FELICIANO (G.R. No.

209338, June 29,

FACTS:

The case stemmed from two Informations both dated July 14, 2003, charging appellant with the crimes of violation
of Sections 5 and 11, Article II, of R.A. No. 9165 for illegal sale and possession of methylamphetamine hydrochloride
or shabu, the accusatory portions of which read as follows:

VERSION OF THE PROSECUTION:

The prosecution, through the testimonies of witnesses Police Chief Inspector Manuel Chica (P/CI Chica) of PDEA-
Region 3 and Barangay Chairman Marcelino Cruz (Chairman Cruz) of San Francisco, Mabalacat, Pampanga,
established the following:

Based on a tip from a confidential informant that a certain alias "Dawie" who would later on be identified as the
herein appellant is actively engaged in the selling of shabu in Purok Roxas, Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga, P/CI Chica
immediately formed a team composed of Chairman Cruz and Police Officer 2 Richard Lambino (PO2 Lambino) to
conduct a buy-bust operation on July 11, 2003. P/CI Chica himself was designated as the poseur-buyer. He prepared
the buy-bust money consisting of two (2) one hundred peso bills 10 which he marked by placing a dot on the
forehead of the picture of the late President Manuel A. Roxas printed on the said bills. 11

At around 4:30 p.m. of the same date, the team proceeded to the target area. 12 The members of the team
strategically positioned themselves around the area as P/CI Chica and the informant approached appellant. The
informant introduced P/CI Chica to appellant as the buyer of shabu. Appellant readily handed to P/CI Chica a plastic
sachet containing suspected shabu and in return, P/CI Chica paid appellant the marked money. When P/CI Chica
made the pre-arranged signal, the other members of the team rushed to the scene. He then introduced himself as a
police officer to appellant. Appellant tried to flee, but Chairman Cruz was able to grab him by his left hand and
recover another plastic sachet of suspected shabu. Then the police officers asked appellant to empty his pockets
and they recovered the marked money from him. Thereafter, they immediately brought appellant together with the
seized drugs to the PDEA office for investigation.13

At the PDEA office, P/CI Chica and Chairman Cruz, among others, prepared the Receipt of Property
Seized/Confiscations14 which appellant refused to sign. P/CI Chica marked the sachet bought from appellant with the
markings "MCC15 BFM

16
Exhibit A" while the sachet recovered by Chairman Cruz from appellant was marked as " MCC BFMB." 17 P/CI Chica
also prepared a Request for Laboratory Examination 18 dated July 11, 2003 indicating that " MCC BFM Exhibit A"
weighed at approximately 0.0363 gram while " MCC BFM B" weighed at approximately 0.0759 gram. PO2 Lambino
brought the said Request and the two specimens to the PNP Crime Laboratory. 19 The result of the laboratory
examination of the submitted two (2)specimens as contained in Chemistry Report No. D-324-2003 20dated July 12,

2003 yielded a positive result to the test for methylamphetamine hydrochloride.

Chairman Cruz also testified that he was deputized by PDEA-Region 3 to assist in anti-drug operations in its area of
responsibility. He corroborated P/CI Chicas testimony on the details and circumstances of the aforementioned buy-
bust operation.21

VERSION OF THE DEFENSE

On the other hand, the defense gave a different version of the story.

Appellant denied the offenses charged. He narrated that while he was on his way home from his work at Dau
Supermart, Marina Arcade at around 4:00 p.m. of July 11, 2003, he saw the two (2) cars from which the persons who
arrested him alighted when he reached the corner of Roxas Street. He recognized one of those w ho handcuffed him
as one M jor Chica. He asked Major Chica the reason for his arrest, and the latter replied that the police officers
were able to buy shabu from him. He posited that it was not possible for him to have sold shabu to them because
he had just come from work and that he saw them only at the corner of Roxas Street. Appellant stressed that there
were several people who witnessed the incident, but they were afraid of narrating the actual events because the
police officers poked their guns at them. He added that even the barangay chairman of Roxas, Dau, one Dominador
"Doming" Paniza, saw the incident but he, too, was afraid of the police officers. Appellant added that he was
subsequently detained at a PDEA safehouse in Barangay San Francisco, Mabalacat, Pampanga and was later
charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.22

ISSUES:

(1) Whether or not the appellants guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

(2) W/N the failure of buy-bust team to immediately mark the seized drugs and take photographs of the said
items in the presence of the appellant, creates a doubt as to the identity and integrity of the drugs and
that there was a break in the chain of custody of the evidence.

HELD:

(1) YES.

Conviction is proper in prosecutions involving illegal sale of dangerous drugs if the following elements are present:

(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and

(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereto.32

We hold that the prosecution sufficiently discharged the burden of establishing the elements of illegal sale of
dangerous drugs and in proving the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

In this case, the prosecution duly established the identity of the buyer and the seller, appellant being the seller and
P/CI Chica as the poseur-buyer. The object of the transaction was a sachet of methylamphetamine hydrochloride or
shabu marked as "MCC BFM Exhibit A" weighing approximately 0.0363 gram and the consideration was the P200
marked money. Through the testimonial and documentary evidence presented by the prosecution both the object
and consideration have also been sufficiently established. As to the delivery of the thing sold and the payment
therefore, P/CI Chica categorically testified that he caught appellant in flagrante delicto selling and delivering the
shabu during a buy-bust operation. He also personally handed to appellant the marked money as payment for the
same. Clearly, the aforementioned elements are present in this case.

It bears stressing that the sale of the illegal drugs in this case was brought about by a buy-bust operation a form
of entrapment that is resorted to for trapping and capturing criminals. It is legal and has been proved to be an
effective method of apprehending drug peddlers, provided due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards is
undertaken. Time and again, this Court has ruled that a buy-bust operation is employed to trap and catch a
malefactor in flagrante delicto.33

Parenthetically, in illegal possession of dangerous drugs, such as shabu, the elements are:

(1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug;

(2) such possession is not authorized by law; and

(3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. 34

These elements are also present in this case. P/CI Chica testified that after the appellant sold him shabu, another
plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance was recovered by Chairman Cruz from appellant at the time
of his arrest. This too was marked as "MCC BFM B" weighing at approximately 0.0759 gram and submitted to the
crime laboratory for analysis, and was positively found to contain shabu.

We note that P/CI Chica identified in court the sachet marked as "MCC BFM Exhibit A " as the very sachet he bought
from appellant and the sachet marked as " MCC BFM B" as the sachet recovered by Chairman Cruz from appellant
at the time of his arrest. The seized items, proven positive to be shabu, were properly identified and presented
before the court.

The Court gives full faith and credence to the testimonies of the police officers and upholds the presumption of
regularity in the apprehending officers performance of official duty. It is a settled rule that in cases involving
violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers, for they
are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. 35

On the other hand, appellant failed to present clear and convincing evidence to overturn the presumption that the
arresting officers regularly performed their duties. Except for his bare allegation of denial, nothing supports his
claim that the police officers were impelled by improper motives to testify against him. In fact, in his cross-
examination, appellant cannot think of any reason why the police officers would fabricate stories against him and
charge him with two serious offenses.36

This Court has invariably viewed with disfavor the defense of denial. Denial is inherently a weak defense and cannot
prevail over the positive identification by the prosecution. Negative and self-serving denial deserves no weight in
law when unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence. Such defense of denial, like frame-up, is a common
and standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. 37

Moreover, it bears stressing that in weighing the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses vis--vis those of the
defense, the RTC gave more credence to the version of the prosecution. This Court finds no reason to disagree.
Well-settled is the rule that in the absence of palpable error or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial
judge, the trial courts evaluation of the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal. 38 Prosecutions
involving illegal drug s depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conduct the "buy-bust" operation
and appellate courts, upon established precedents and of necessity, rely on the assessment of the credibility of
witnesses by the trial courts which have the unique opportunity, unavailable to the appellate courts, to observe the
witnesses and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under direct and cross-examination. 39

(2) NO.

Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 pertinently provides:

SECTION 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:

(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure
and confiscation, physically inventory an d photograph the same in the presence 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, whicheve r is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that
non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such
seizures of and custody over said items[.]

Evidently, the law itself lays down exceptions to its requirements. Thus, non-compliance with the above mentioned
requirements is not fatal.1wphi1 In fact it has been ruled time and again that non-compliance with Section 21 of
the IRR does not make the items seized inadmissible. Substantial compliance thereof is sufficient. "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." Here, the records reveal that the police officers
substantially complied with the process of preserving the integrity of the seized shabu. 40
The chain of custody requirement is essential to ensure that doubts regarding the identity of the evidence are
removed through the monitoring and tracking of the movements of the seized drugs from the accused, to the
police, to the forensic chemist, and finally to the court. 41

Section 1(b) of DDB Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, 42 defines chain of custody as follows:

b. "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 item shall 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[.]

We have laid down the following links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust
situation:

1. First, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer;
2. Second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer;
3. Third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory
examination; and
4. Fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the
court.43

In this case, the chain of custody was duly established through the following links: (1) P/CI Chica marked the seized
sachet subject of the buy-bust operation as "MCC BFM Exhibit A" and the sachet recovered by Chairman Cruz as
"MCC BFM B"; (2) a request for laboratory examination of the seized items so marked was signed by P/CI Chica; (3)
the request and the marked items seized, which were personally delivered by P02 Lambino, were received by the
PNP Crime Laboratory; (4) Chemistry Report No. D-324-2003 confirmed that the marked items seized from appellant
were methylamphetamine hydrochloride; and (5) the marked items were offered in evidence.

As the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved, this Court, therefore, finds no reason
to overturn the findings of the RTC that the drugs seized from appellant were the same ones presented during trial.