Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=84254:59980&amp;catid=1594&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 03:47:13+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 211199, March 25, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. RANDY ROLLO Y LAGASCA, Defendant and Appellant.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. RANDY ROLLO Y LAGASCA, Defendant and Appellant.
On appeal is the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals promulgated on 18 September 2013 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04507 affirming the conviction by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Camiling, Tarlac, Branch 68 of appellant Randy Rollo y Lagasca for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a P500,000.00 fine.
At around 4:30 p.m. of 23 June 2008, the buy-bust team proceeded to the target area situated along Arellano Street, Barangay Poblacion, Camiling, Tarlac. Upon reaching the area, PO1 Ayad proceeded to talk to appellant who was then standing in front of a store, while the other members of the buy-bust team were positioned in the area. After a brief conversation, appellant handed to PO1 Ayad two plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance. In exchange, PO1 Ayad handed the pre-marked five hundred peso (P500.00) bill to appellant. Thereafter, PO1 Ayad made the pre-arranged signal of removing the handkerchief on his forehead. The back-up team emerged and introduced themselves as police officers to appellant.4 PO3 Verdadero and PO1 Ayad requested appellant to empty his pockets and they were able to recover the buy-bust money and one heat-sealed sachet of white crystalline substance from appellant. Appellant was then arrested and brought to the police station for investigation.5 The seized items and the marked money were turned over at the police station to SPO1 Jorge Caoagdan, who marked the two plastic sachets with the initials “RRL1” and “RRL2” in the presence of PO1 Ayad.6 A written request for laboratory examination was prepared and the seized items were brought to the crime laboratory for examination.
On 27 May 2010, the RTC rendered judgment finding appellant guilty of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a P500,000.00 fine. The trial court found that the prosecution was able to prove the existence of the elements of the crime of illegal sale of shabu through the testimonial, documentary and the object evidence presented.
Upon receipt of the unfavorable decision, appellant seasonably filed a Notice of Appeal11 before the Court of Appeals. On 18 September 2013, the appellate court affirmed the judgment of the RTC.
Upon review of the records, we agree with the lower courts’ unanimous finding that the guilt of the appellant was established beyond reasonable doubt.
Appellant asserts that there was no proof that the alleged sale transaction took place because the witnesses presented did not testify as to the material details of the alleged buy-bust operation, such as the details of the meeting of the informant, the alleged source of the information on the sale of illegal drugs, the initial contact made with appellant, the offer to purchase drugs, the payment and delivery of the drugs, and the actual exchange of the sachets containing shabu.
On the contrary, all the elements for illegal sale were duly established with appellant being caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu through a buy-bust operation conducted by members of the PMG in Camiling, Tarlac.
In said affidavit, the police officers made a detailed account of the preparations made prior to the buy-bust operation such as the documentation, marking on the boodle money, operational strategy and the like were detailed. PO1 Ayad also categorically stated that he gave the marked money to appellant in exchange for one (1) piece of transparent plastic heat-sealed sachet of shabu.
After the planned, what did you do if any?
After having that plan we proceeded to the place/area upon the person of Randy Rollo while the group back up posted as perimeter security near the vicinity of the suspect, sir.
Did you reach the place of Randy Rollo?
You said, “we”, who was your companion?
What was the specific task of Ryan Ayad?
He acted as poseur buyer that time, sir.
There is a pre-arranged signal, am I correct?
What is the signal, Mr. witness?
During that incident, PO1 Ayad signaled our back up by removing [the] handkerchief tied on his forehead, sir.
[T]hat the transaction has been consummated, sir.
We introduced ourselves as policeman, sir.
To whom that signal is addressed to?
To me, sir – sa akin.
When you said, you introduced yourselves to the suspect-accused?
In effect, why you introduced yourselves to this suspect?
Yes, sir in order to apprehend him, sir.
And you arrested this person?
Who was that person again whom you arrested?
Randy Rollo Y Lagasca, sir.
If he is inside the Courtroom, can you point to him?
May I know the name of that person pointed to by the accused?
May I manifest that the person pointed to by the witness is the same person charged and arraigned in this case, your Honor.
What did you discover from the accused?
One (1) plastic heat sealed sachet of shabu, sir.
From whom did this shabu come from?
What thing did you discover from Randy Rollo, from his possession?
Marked money Five Hundred peso bill sir.
Are you referring to this photograph of Php500 peso bill with Serial Number SH474713?
PO1 Ayad corroborated the testimony of PO3 Verdadero that he was with the latter when they arrested appellant for illegal sale of drugs.
The result of the laboratory examination, as testified to by the forensic chemist, confirmed the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride on the white crystalline substance inside the plastic sachet confiscated from appellant. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummated the buy-bust transaction.
Appellant avers that the police officers failed to strictly abide by the procedures for the custody and disposition of the confiscated drugs as provided in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. In particular, appellant points out that the markings of the seized items were done in the police station; that there was no physical inventory made or photographs of the seized items; and that there were no representatives from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ).
Appellant then maintains that the integrity of the seized drug was compromised in that there were inconsistencies in the testimonies of the police officers as to the quantity of sachets were recovered from appellant and the identity of the person who physically delivered the specimen to the crime laboratory.
Indeed, to erase all doubts as to the identity of the seized drugs, it is important to adhere to the so-called chain of custody rule where the prosecution should establish the following links: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.
In this case, the prosecution was able to sufficiently establish every link in the chain of custody, as well as the integrity of the corpus delicti. As testified to by PO3 Verdadero and PO1 Ayad, after the arrest and confiscation of the items, they immediately brought Accused-Appellant to Camp Makabulos, Tarlac City where the investigator at the station, SPO1 Jorge Caoagdan marked the seized items with the initials “RRL1” and “RRL2” in the presence of PO1 Ayad. From the investigating officer, the seized items were turned over to the forensic chemist PSI Jebie Timario [for] laboratory examination. After examination, PSI Timario also placed her own markings on the said seized items. On the witness stand, PSI Timario declared that the items shown to her were the same items which she received from Pereja in the presence of Police Officer Dinoy. Lastly, PO3 Verdadero testified that the items presented in court were the very same items that they seized during the buy-bust operation.
In fine, it has been established by proof beyond reasonable doubt that appellant sold shabu. Under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the penalty of life imprisonment to death and fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00 shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved. Hence, the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, correctly imposed the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 18 September 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04507 affirming the conviction of appellant Randy Rollo y Lagasca by the Regional Trial Court of Camiling, Tarlac, Branch 68, for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 is hereby AFFIRMED.
Sereno, C.J., (Chairperson), Leonardo De-Castro, J., Bersamin, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.
1Rollo, pp. 2-15; Penned by Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam with Associate Justices Romeo F. Barza and Ramon A. Cruz, concurring.
3 Id. at 3; Joint Affidavit of Arrest.
4 TSN, 11 December 2009, p. 6.
6 TSN, 5 February 2009, pp. 4-5.
7 TSN, 9 July 2009, pp. 4-9.
9 TSN, 21 May 2009, pp. 4-5.
10 TSN, 12 November 2009, pp. 2-8.
12Quelnan v. People, 553 Phil. 618, 637 (2007).
13People v. Montevirgen, G.R. No. 189840, 11 December 2013, 712 SCRA 459, 467; People v. Lorenzo, 633 Phil. 393, 402 (2010).
15 TSN, 11 December 2009, pp. 5-7.
16People v. Ocfemia, G.R. No. 185383, 25 September 2013, 706 SCRA 312, 333-334.
17People v. Presas, 659 Phil. 503, 516-517 (2011).
19People v. Fang, G.R. No. 199874, 23 July 2014; People v. Monceda, G.R. No. 176269, 13 November 2013, 709 SCRA 355, 709-710.
21People v. Gani, G.R. No. 198318, 27 November 2013, 711 SCRA 78, 93.

References: v. 
 v. 
In fine
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.