People of the Philippines vs.

Ramie Ortega y Katbi A.k.a Ay-ay

G.R. No. 207392
July 2, 2014
Facts:
On February 12, 2005, an informant tipped Zamboanga Police Task Force that Ay-ay and Len-len were selling
shabu in their residence at Zamboanga City. Consequently, a team was formed to conduct a buy-bust operation. The
team went to the area and upon arrival at the locus criminus, the buy and sell transaction took place which eventually
led to the arrest of the accused and his wife, for violation of sec 5 of RA 9165, Dangerous Drugs Actfor illegal sales of
dangerous drugs.
At the police office 2 plastic sachets of shabu taken from the accused, which were then initialled by the
arresting officer were turned over, together with the marked money used. Upon receipt of all the evidence, a police
officer the prepared a request for laboratory examination, personally forwarded the request to the Crime Lab Office
and were received by the duty Police Non-Commissioned Officer thereat by placing the stamp of the said office of the
same day.
On February 14, 2005, a forensic chemist examined the contents of the plastic sachets and issued a Chemistry
Report which yielded positive by for shabu. The report was co-signed by a Police Chief investigator.
Information was then filed and accused and wife were formally charged in court. Joint trial was conducted,
however, the case against Len-len was dismissed because the evidence adduced against her was inadmissible for
being a product of invalid search.
As a defense, the accused relied heavily on denial- that they were forced to hold plastic sachets at gunpoint
while they photographed.
On April 15, 2010, the RTC found the accused guilty. It ruled that the evidence of the prosecution clearly
established the elements of illegal sale of drugs in a valid buy-bust operation. The defense of denial cannot overturn
the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties accorded to apprehending officers.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the lower court. Hence, the present appeal to the
Supreme Court.
Issue 1:
Whether the lower court gravely erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
charged?
Held:
No, the prosecution was able to establish the elements to be present in this case. The evidence positively identified
the buyer as the police officer and the seller as appellant. Also, the prosecution presented in evidence the two sachets
of shabu as the object of the sale and the marked-money as consideration thereof. Finally, the delivery of the shabu
sold and its payment were clearly testified by the prosecution witnesses.
Issue 2:
Whether or not the trial court failed to consider the procedural flaws committed by arresting officers in the seizure and
custody of drugs- lack of inventory, marking not done in his presence, examination of confiscated items only after 2
days after it was submitted for lab exam, thus casts doubts on the validity of his arrest.
Held:
Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulation of RA 9165 provides the procedure to be
followed in the custody and handling the seized Dangerous Drugs. The last part of the same issuance provides the
exception to the strict compliance with the requirements.
Although ideally the prosecution should offer a perfect chain of custody in the handling of evidence
substantial compliance is sufficient. It has been consistently held that even if arresting officers failed to strictly
comply, such procedural lapse is not fatal and will not render the items seized inadmissible in evidence what is
important is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items as the same would be utilized in
the determination of the innocence or guilt of the accused.
To be admissible in evidence, the prosecution must:

a.
b.
c.
d.

Must be able to present through record or testimony the whereabouts of the dangerous drugs from the time
they were seized from the accused by the arresting officers;
Must be turned over to the investigating officer;
Must be forwarded to the laboratory exam to determine the composition;
Must be preserved up to the time the items are offered in evidence.

For as long as the chain of custody remains unbroken, as in this case, eventhough the procedural requirements
provided for in sec 21 of RA 9165 was not faithfully observed, the guilt of the accused will not be affected.
Appeal is denied and the penalty imposed if affirmed.