G.R. No. 199872, February 05, 2014


The Public Prosecutor charged the accused Casser Malic y Dacoran (Malic) with selling dangerous drugs in violation of Section 5 of Republic Act (R.A.) 9165 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City in Criminal Case Q-04-123436.

PO2 Napoleon Zamora testified that on December 29, 2003 the police received an informant's report that a certain Daodao, later identified as accused Malic, was peddling shabu at the corner of Araneta and Victory Avenues in Quezon City.[1] The police immediately organized a team that would conduct a buy-bust operation with PO2 Zamora as the poseur buyer.

Upon arrival at the designated area, the police spotted accused Malic standing there as reported. PO2 Zamora and the informant approached him and told him that they wanted to buy shabu. Malic took a plastic sachet containing white substance from his pants pocket and handed it to PO2 Zamora, who in turn gave him a pre-marked P100 bill. After this, the police officer gave the pre-arranged signal and this immediately brought PO3 Jose Castuciano to the spot, enabling him to arrest Malic. The police brought Malic to the police station where PO2 Zamora marked the seized sachet with NZ-CM then turned over the same to the investigator-in-charge who placed his own marking on the same.[2]

PO3 Castuciano corroborated PO2 Zamora's story. He testified that when he saw the pre-arranged signal of PO2 Zamora, he arrested Malic, informed him of his constitutional rights, and brought him to the police station.[3] From there, the seized item was sent to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory and was received by the chemist who had also put the mark "BMB" on it.[4] The test yielded positive result for methylamphetamine hydrochloride.[5]For his part, Malic denied selling shabu. He claims that the police operatives framed him. He was waiting for a friend who lived near the corner of Araneta and Victory Avenues when suddenly a group of men approached him and asked if he was Otowa.[6] They then frisked him and got his wallet. On learning that he was a Muslim, the police officers took him to their station where they confronted him with a plastic sachet that they allegedly seized from him. The police officers asked Malic for money to settle the case but he refused, having none.[7] They then brought him to the prosecutor's office for inquest.

After trial, the RTC found Malic guilty of the crime charged and imposed on him the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00.[8] On appeal in CA-G.R. CR-HC 02355, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC Decision.[9]

In prosecutions for violations of R.A. 9165, the State has the burden to prove two things: all the elements of the crime and the corpus delicti. Here, the prosecution has proved all the elements of illegal sale of drugs as well as the corpus delicti. The testimony of PO2 Zamora, corroborated by PO3 Castuciano and supported by the documentary and object evidence, establish beyond reasonable doubt, all the elements of the crime. Further, the chain of custody of the seized drugs that passed from PO2 Zamora to the investigator, and to the chemist ensured the integrity of the seized substance. The Court agrees with the CA that the integrity of the seized drugs had been preserved and that any supposed inconsistency was minor and irrelevant and did not affect his conviction.

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the appeal and AFFIRMS the Decision dated November 27, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC 02355.


[1] TSN, March 17, 2004, pp. 5, 9.
[2] Id. at 17-19.
[3] Id. at 33-34.
[4] TSN, November 25, 2004, p. 4.
[5] Chemistry Report D-1417-03, records, p. 9.
[6] TSN, August 25, 2005, pp. 5-6.
[7] Id. at 11-13.
[8] Decision dated May 28, 2006, records, pp. 87-90.
[9] Decision dated November 27, 2009, rollo, pp. 2-14.
[10] In order to successfully prosecute an accused for illegal sale of drugs, the prosecution must be able to prove the following elements: (1) identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. See People v. Partoza, G.R. No. 182418, May 8, 2009, 587 SCRA 809, 816.
[11] People v. Ditona, G.R. No. 189841, December 15, 2010, 638 SCRA 835, 839.