G.R. No. 241017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. BRENDA CAMIÑAS Y AMING, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, sentenced her to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00. [11] It ruled that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. [12] Aggrieved, Camiñas appealed [13] to the CA. In a Decision [14] dated January 30, 2018, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling. [15] It ruled that the integrity of the seized items remained unscathed since PO2 Jeriel Jarez Trinidad (PO2 Trinidad) was in custody of the seized items from the time it was recovered from Camiñas up to the time it was delivered to Police Chief Inspector Anamelisa Sebido Bacani (PCI Bacani), Forensic Chemist, for laboratory examination, who, in turn, delivered the seized items to Evidence Custodian Junia Ducad (Evidence Custodian Ducad) for safekeeping. [16] Hence, this appeal seeking that Camiñas's conviction be overturned. The Court's Ruling The appeal is without merit. The elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 are: ( 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. [17] Here, the courts a quo correctly found that Camiñas committed the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, as the records clearly show that she was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu to the poseur-buyer, PO2 Trinidad, during a legitimate buy-bust operation conducted by the DAID­SOTG. 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. [18] Further, the Court notes that the buy-bust team had sufficiently complied with the chain of custody rule under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. In cases for Illegal Sale and/or Possession of Dangerous Drugs under 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 able to account for each link of the chain of custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime. [21] As part of the chain of custody procedure, the law requires, inter alia , that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation