People v Arnold Yanga Castro [Velasco, Jr, 2011]

Violation of Sections 5 (drug pushing) and 11 (illegal possession), Article II of RA 9165 or the Dangerous Drugs Act.

FACTS

At 1am, P/Insp Armenta and PO2 Zamora of the Galas Police Station received a report from a male informant that a
certain alias IDOL had been selling drugs in the Cordillera and Ramirez streets in Barangay San Isidro, QC.
Armenta relayed the info to their chief, Col. Razon. Col. Razon then formed a buy-bust operation team composed
of 4 members including Armenta and Zamora. Armenta would be the poseur-buyer and was given a 100-peso bill
with the initials JA (Armenta’s initials). The team was dispatched in 2 vehicles to Brgy San Isidro. At around 2 am,
Armenta and the informant went to an eskinita with a distance of more than 10 meters. Zamora saw Armenta talking
to a person (accused Castro) near a Meralco post.

The informant introduced Armenta as the prospective buyer of shabu. Armenta asked how much. Castro said “piso”
which is equivalent to 100php. Armenta handed Castro the 100 pesos and Castro gave him a transparent plastic
containing some white crystalline substance which was pulled out from his pocket.

Armenta then scratched his head, signaling his team members that the transaction was consummated. The team
closed in and arrested Castro. PO2 Zamora informed Castro of his violation, frisked him and recovered 2 more
sachets containing the white crystalline substance.

Chain of Custody

Armenta took custody of the sachet Castro sold to him. Zamora kept the marked money and the 2 other sachets.
Armenta marked the transparent plastic with “JA-AC”. Zamora marked the 2 sachets with “NZ-AC” (the markings
corresponded to the initials of the police officer and the accused). The 3 sachets were turned over to the
investigating police officer Jimenez.

The PNP crime laboratory made a chemical analysis on the seized items. The 3 sachets were positive for
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu.
RTC – guilty, life imprisonment for drug pushing under Sec 5, RA 9165. Also sentenced to suffer a jail term of 12
years and 1 day as a minimum to 13 years + a fine of P 300k.

CA – accused was caught in flagrante delicto. RTC ruling affirmed.

ISSUES

WON chain of custody was established – YES

Castro: Prosecution failed to preserve the integrity of the seized items and establish an unbroken chain of custody.
After seizure or confiscation, the items must be physically inventoried and photographed in the presence of the
accused and/or his representative who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy.

Court: Perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always impossible. What is important is the
preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. (IRR of RA 9165). The procedural
infirmities Castro mentioned do not affect the prosecution nor renders Castro’s arrest illegal nor the items seized
inadmissible.

In People v Quiamanlon, the Court held that the integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved,
unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with.

WON proof beyond reasonable doubt was established – YES

Castro failed to show palpable error.

For prosecution under Sec 5 of the DDA the following elements must concur: (1) the identities of the buyer
and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof.

What is material to the prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually
occurred, coupled with the presentation in court of the substance seized as evidence.
With respect to Sec 11 of the DDA (illegal possession), the evidence of the prosecution must establish the
following elements: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be an illegal
drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed
the drug.

Possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to
convict and accused in the absence of satisfactory explanation for his possession. Burden of evidence is thus
shifted to the accused. Castro failed to discharge burden.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03800 finding
accused-appellant Arnold Castro y Yanga guilty of the crimes charged is AFFIRMED.