G.R. No. 232619 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. JOMAR QUILANG Y BANGAYAN, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the amount of P500,000.00. [9] The RTC held that the prosecution sufficiently established all the elements of the said crime, and further ruled that the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were preserved. In light of the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the RTC rejected Quilang's defense of denial, further pointing out that if he and his family were truly aggrieved by the PDEA agents' actions, they could have easily filed a complaint against them. [10] Aggrieved, Quilang appealed the RTC ruling to the CA. [11] In a Decision [12] dated June 22, 2016, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling, [13] holding, among others, that the marking of the seized item at the nearest office of the apprehending team constitutes sufficient compliance with the chain of custody rule. [14] Hence, this appeal seeking that Quilang's conviction be overturned. The Court's Ruling The appeal is without merit. For the conviction of an accused charged with Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the prosecution must prove: ( a ) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and ( b ) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. [15] Here, the courts a quo correctly found that all the elements of the crime charged are present, as the records clearly show that Quilang was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu to the poseur-buyer during a legitimate buy-bust operation conducted by the operatives of PDEA Region 2. Since there is no indication that the said courts overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case, the Court finds no reason to deviate from their factual findings. In this regard, it should be noted that the trial court was in the best position to assess and determine the credibility of the witnesses presented by both parties. [16] In an attempt to absolve himself from criminal liability, Quilang argues, inter alia , that the PDEA agents failed to comply with the chain of custody rule as the marking and inventory of the seized items were not done immediately at the place of the alleged buy-bust operation but at the PDEA Region 2 Office, and that such failure had created doubt as to the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item. [17] Quilang's contention is untenable. In cases for Illegal Sale and/or Possession [18] of Dangerous Drugs undei RA 9165, it is essential that the identity of the dangerous drug be established with moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime. [19] Failing to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti renders the evidence for the State insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and hence, warrants an acquittal. [20] To establish the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty, the prosecution must be