PEOPLE V. ABENES ISSUE: W/N appellant’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
(2016|Del Castillo)
On July 2009 SPO1 Badua received a tip from an informant that
Abenes was involved in the sale of shabu. After SPO1 Badua contacted
Abenes, he and PO1 Lag-ey and PO1 Moyao prepared a buy-bust operation.
SPO1 Badua was the designated poseur buyer and he was to buy P1,000.00
worth of shabu in front of Leisure Lodge, Baguio City.
In the meeting area around 6:30 pm, Abenes approached SPO1
Badua who was with the informant and the sale of the one plastic sachet of
shabu was completed. Upon seeing the exchange, the buy-bust team
approached and placed her under arrest. She was told of her constitutional
rights and subjected to a body search which revealed another plastic sachet
with white crystalline substance. The items seized were marked on site by
PO1 Moyao.
The team brought Abenes to the police station where the affidavit,
inventory, Booking Sheet, Qualitative Examination Request and Urine
Request was prepared. The two plastic sachets tested positive for shabu. A
complaint for violation of Section 11 (illegal possession) and Section 21
(illegal sale) of RA 9165 and its IRR.
Defense: Abenes testified that she was a GRO in the Leisure Lodge
and she asked her friend Jing Jing if she knows someone who sells shabu.
Upon her friend’s denial, a woman invited her to Katipunan Inn. She claimed
this woman sold her and her friend shabu and the three of them consumed it
in a room in the Katpunan Inn. Afterwards, Abenes separated from the two
and went to Leisure Lodge to freshen up. As she was freshening up,
someone knocked on the door and she saw a man and a woman looking for
Jing Jing. Upon saying no, the two introduced themselves as police officers
and she was pointed by Jing Jing as the source of shabu. She angrily denied
but the police officers did not believe her. As she was being led away, she
saw Jing Jing asking for forgivness for framing her.
RTC: Presumption of regularity, in addition to her admission she
used drugs, ruled against Abenes.
CA: Abenes appealed, citing a broken chain of custody and failure to
prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. She alleges that they failed to comply
with the requirements of law re proper marking, inventory and taking of
photograph of the seized specimen. However, the CA affirmed the RTC
decision. The CA observed that the integrity and evidentiary value of the
confiscated drugs were duly preserved as the chain of custody of the same
has been clearly established with supporting evidence.
HELD: PARTLY MERITORIOUS.
Re illegal drug sale
In the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs to prosper: (1) the identity
of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it.
 These elements were satisfied by the prosecution’s evidence:
positive identification by witnesses, appellant sold the drug to SPO1
Badua, positive testification by witnesses the sale occurred, shabu
weighing 0.02 grams and money amounting to P1,000 identified by
witnesses
Re requirements of law regarding marking, inventory etc.
Appellant failed to contest the admissibility in evidence of the
seized items during trial. She never manifested or even hinted there were
lapses on the part of the police officers handling such and affecting its
integrity and evidentiary value. O]bjection to the admissibility of evidence
cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
In any event, it is “settled that an accused may still be found guilty,
despite the failure to faithfully observe the requirements provided under
Section 21 of RA 9165, for as long as the chain of custody remains
unbroken.”
 CAB: Prosecution was able to establish the chain of custody from the
moment it was seized from appellant, delivery to the crime lab up the
time it was presented during trial as proof of the corpus delicti.
Re the quantum of evidence
While the finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt of appellant by
the trial court and affirmed by the CA in the illegal sale of shabu is affirmed,
the quantum of evidence needed to convict, proof beyond reasonable
doubt, has not been adequately established by the prosecution in the charge
of illegal possession of dangerous drug under Section 11, Article II of RA
9165.
CAB: The evidence of the team showed they were not able to provide a
clear identification of the illegal drug seized from appellant’s
possession. There was no clear identification of the item allegedly seized
from the possession of appellant after the sale. Of all the people who came
into direct contact with the sachet of shabu purportedly seized from
appellant, it was only PO1 Moyao who could directly and possibly observe
the uniqueness thereof in court. According to SPO1 Badua and SPO1 Lag-
ey, it was PO1 Moyao who took initial custody of the seized plastic sachet
when appellant was frisked at the time of arrest and who allegedly marked
the same with initials. But for no apparent reason, PO1 Moyao was not
even presented in court to identify the plastic sachet and more
importantly to acknowledge the alleged marking thereon as her own.

The narcotic substance is the corpus delicti of the offense and the
fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond
reasonable doubt. With the material omission to indubitably show the identity
of the dangerous drug, subject matter in the charge of illegal possession, the
prosecution has not proven the indispensable element of corpus delicti.

The fundamental law presumes the accused is innocent. This

presumption must prevail until the end unless overcome by strong, clear and
compelling evidence. The presumption of regularity in the performance of
official duty cannot by itself overcome the presumption of innocence. Even if
the defense of denial and frame-up is inherently weak, the conviction of the
accused must rest not on the weakness of the defense but on the strength of
the prosecution.

PARTLY GRANTED.