G.R. No. 243986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. R. LORENZ ESGUERRA Y BALIBER A.K.A . "RR," 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 a fine in the amount of P500,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency" [13] The trial court did not give credence to accused-appellant's defense of denial, [14] and ruled that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements o( the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, and that there was substantial compliance with the chain of custody rule. [15] Aggrieved, accused-appellant moved for reconsideration, [16] which was denied by the RTC in a Resolution [17] dated January 18, 2017. Undaunted, accused-appellant appealed [18] to the CA, arguing that he should be acquitted because the identity and integrity of the seized drug were not properly preserved. [19] In a Decision [20] dated July 31, 2018, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision in toto. [21] It held that the seized drug was properly marked, inventoried, and photographed in the presence of the required witnesses, as well as accused­ appellant himself, and that a specimen of the same had been duly presented and identified in open court. [22] Hence, this appeal seeking that accused-appellant's conviction be overturned. The Court's Ruling The appeal is without merit. In every prosecution for the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the following elements must be proven beyond reasonable doubt: ( 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. [23] Here, the courts a quo correctly found that accused-appellant committed the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, as records clearly show that he was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu to the poseur-buyer, IO1 Balbada, during a legitimate buy-bust operation conducted by the PDEA. 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. Further, the Court observes that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug had been properly preserved since the PDEA team 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, as amended by RA 10640, 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. [24] 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. [25] To establish the identity of the dangerous drugs 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 cou