G.R. No. 212160 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. DENNIS SUMILI, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, sentenced him to life imprisonment, and ordered him to pay a fine in the amount of P500,000.00. [15] The RTC found that a buy-bust operation indeed occurred where Sumili sold the seized sachet to the poseur-buyer. In this regard, it gave credence to the straightforward and categorical testimonies of prosecution witnesses detailing how the police officers received information that Sumili was selling shabu , investigated and confirmed that he indeed was selling shabu , conducted the buy-bust operation, recovered, marked, and transmitted the seized item from Sumili to the PNP Crime Laboratory, and that the laboratory results yielded positive for shabu . Conversely, it did not give weight to the defense testimonies which merely denied the existence of the buy-bust operation and insisted that Sumili was not selling drugs. [16] Dissatisfied, Sumili appealed [17] his conviction to the CA. The CA Ruling In a Decision [18] dated January 29, 2014, the CA affirmed Sumilis conviction in toto . [19] It agreed with the RTCs finding that a buy-bust operation actually occurred, resulting in the seizure of a sachet containing shabu. [20] Further, the CA also held that despite the police officers non-compliance with the procedure enshrined in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti, or the seized drug itself, was nevertheless preserved and, thus, Sumilis conviction must be sustained. [21] Finally, the CA opined that Sumili failed to rebut by clear and convincing evidence the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties enjoyed by the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation. [22] Aggrieved, Sumili filed the instant appeal. [23] The Issue Before the Court The issue for the Courts resolution is whether Sumilis conviction for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 should be upheld. The Courts Ruling The appeal is meritorious. In order to convict an accused for violation of RA 9165, or the crime of sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish the concurrence of the following elements: ( 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. [24] Note that what remains material for conviction is the proof that the transaction actually took place, coupled with the presentation before the court of the corpus delicti . [25] It is also important that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items be preserved. Simply put, the dangerous drug presented in court as evidence against an accused must be the same as that seized from him. The chain of custody requirement removes any unnecessary doubts regarding the identity of the evidence. [26] As held in People v. Viterbo : [27] In every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the following elements must concur: (a) the identities of the buyer and the seller, object, and considerat