G.R. No. 219955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. GLENN DE GUZMAN Y DELOS REYES, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the RTC sentenced appellant to sutler the penalties of: a) life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 in Criminal Case No. 627-09; and b) imprisonment from twelve (12) yeas and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months and a fine of P300,000.00 for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 in Criminal Case No. 628-09. [20] Appellant thereafter appealed the RTC Decision before the CA. Ruling of the Court of Appeals In its Decision dated January 29, 2015 the CA affirmed the assailed RTC Decision in toto . It upheld the RTC's findings that the prosecution was able to sufficiently establish all the elements of both the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. [21] The CA noted that appellant was positively identified by PO1 Reyes, the poseur-buyer, as the person who sold to him a sachet of marijuana that was presented in court for P100.00 during the entrapment operation. [22] It emphasized that "[i]n cases of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the accused of the marked money consummate the transaction." [23] In addition, the CA ruled that all the elements of illegal possession of marijuana were present in the case, considering that: first , four sachets of marijuana and one plastic pack containing a small brick of marijuana fn1iting tops were found in appellant's possession after a lawful search on his person; and second , appellant failed to adduce evidence showing his legal authority to possess the contrabands recovered from him. [24] Finally, the CA held that "the prosecution [had] adequately shown the unbroken possession and subsequent transfers of the confiscated items through the following links in the chain of custody:" [25] (1) PO1 Reyes marked the plastic sachet that was subject of the buy-bust with "LR"and turned it over to case investigator SPO1 Delos Reyes who marked it with his own initials "ADR." On the other hand, the four other sachets and plastic pack searched from the person of the accused were separately marked by SPO1 Delos Reyes with his initials "ADR"; (2) A request for laboratory examination of the seized items was then prepared by SPO1 Delos Reyes; (3) The request and the marked items were personally delivered by SPO1 Delos Reyes to the Regional Crime Laboratory; (4) Chemistry Report No. D-074-2009-OCCLO confirmed that the specimens contained marijuana; and (5) The marked items were offered in evidence as Exhibits "I", "I-I" and "I-2". [26] Aggrieved, appellant filed the present appeal. The Issue Appellant raises the sole issue of whether the chain of custody over the seized items had remained unbroken despite the arresting officers: failure to strictly comply with the requirements under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, i.e. , the failure to mark the seized items at the crime scene, and the absence of the representatives from both the DOJ and the media during the conduc