People v. Romorosa
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On February 20, 2010, Catherine Romorosa y Ostoy (@"Lyn"), Mohamad Dampak y Disalo (@"Lando"), and Jamil Dampak y Mimbalawag (@"Jamil") were arrested in Muntinlupa City during a buy-bust operation conducted by agents of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). This led to the filing of five criminal cases, including one against appellant Romorosa for illegal sale of 1.0646 grams and 0.9822 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165. Procedural History: The cases were consolidated before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa City. After trial, the RTC found Mohamad and Jamil guilty of illegal possession of shabu and appellant Romorosa guilty of illegal sale of shabu, sentencing her to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction. Appellant Romorosa appealed to the Supreme Court, questioning the credibility of the poseur-buyer and the integrity of the shabu presented as evidence. The Petition: The appellant argued that the RTC and CA erred in giving full faith and credence to the prosecution's version, citing an alleged inconsistency in the testimony of Special Investigator (SI) Fernandez regarding who "closed the deal" for the shabu. She also contended that the corpus delicti was not proven due to a supposed break in the chain of custody, as the shabu was allegedly kept by Senior Forensic Chemist (SFC) Purificando in his steel cabinet instead of being turned over to an evidence custodian.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC and CA erred in giving full faith and credence to the prosecution's version of events, particularly concerning the alleged inconsistency in the testimony of SI Fernandez. Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the corpus delicti of the offense charged against the appellant, considering the alleged break in the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs.
Ruling
The appeal is dismissed. The Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the conviction of the appellant for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged inconsistency in SI Fernandez's testimony: The Court found no inconsistency between SI Fernandez's testimony and the Joint Affidavit of Arrest. SI Fernandez testified that the confidential informant (CI) was able to "transact a drug deal" with "Omar" for the purchase of shabu. The Joint Affidavit of Arrest stated that SI Fernandez "close[d] a deal" for the purchase of shabu from the appellant. The Court clarified that the phrase "close a deal" in the affidavit referred to the consummation of the sale during the buy-bust operation itself, which was pre-arranged by the CI. This interpretation was supported by SI Fernandez's explanation during cross-examination that "to close a deal" in the context of a buy-bust operation means to confirm the transaction with the subject, which was done by SI Fernandez during the operation. On the sufficiency of proof for the corpus delicti and the chain of custody: The Court held that the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody over the shabu. The essential links were proven: (1) seizure and marking of the illegal drug by the apprehending officer (SI Fernandez) at the NBI Office due to crowd gathering at the scene; (2) turnover of the marked sachets to SI Regalario for inventory and photography, with the appellant present; (3) submission of the marked sachets by SI Regalario to SFC Purificando for laboratory examination, which confirmed the contents as shabu; and (4) SFC Purificando's custody of the shabu in his locked steel cabinet within his office until its submission to the court. The Court found that SFC Purificando's failure to turn over the shabu to a separate evidence custodian before submitting it to the court did not create a gap in the chain of custody. The law does not prescribe a specific intermediary between the forensic chemist and the court, and the chemist's direct submission was recognized in jurisprudence. Furthermore, SFC Purificando provided ample evidence of the security measures taken to ensure the integrity of the shabu while in his custody, including its storage in a locked steel cabinet with the key solely in his possession, within his secured office.
Main Doctrine
The prosecution established the corpus delicti of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt by presenting an unbroken chain of custody over the seized substances, and the alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of the poseur-buyer were reconciled by considering the context of his statements and the Joint Affidavit of Arrest.