l\f public of tbe

<!Court
;fflanila
SECOND DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
- versus -
KENNETH MONCEDAy SY alias
"WILLIAM SY" and YU YUK LAI alias
"SZE YUK LAI,"
Appellants.
G.R. No. 176269
Present:
CARPIO,J.,
Chairperson,
BRION,
DEL CASTILLO,
PEREZ, and
PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ.
Promulgated:
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
BRION, J.:
We resolve the recourse to this Court by appellants Kenneth Monceda
y Sy and Yu Yuk Lai in this dangerous drugs case. They assail their
conviction before the Court of Appeals (CA)
1
and the Regional Trial Court
(RTC)2 of the charges of violating Section 15, Article III of Republic Act
6425,
3
as amended by Republic Act No. 7659.
4
Decision dated May 30, 2005 and resolution dated September 13, 2006 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No.
00434; penned by Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes, and concurred in by Associate Justices Josefina-
Salonga and Fernanda Lampas Peralta. Rollo, pp. 4-34; and CA rollo, pp. 309-310, respectively.
2
Decision dated September 20, 2001, Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, Manila; CA rollo, pp. 175-
215. Penned by Judge Teresa P. Soriaso.
3
The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.
4
AN ACT TO IMPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY ON CERTAIN HEINOUS CRIMES,
AMENDING FOR THAT PURPOSE THE REVISED PENAL LAWS, AS AMENDED, OTHER
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
Decision G.R. No. 176269 2
The Antecedent Facts

The Information brought against the appellants and under which they
were indicted, and subsequently convicted, reads:

That on or about November 7, 1998, in the City of Manila,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one
another, with deliberate intent and without authority of law, did then and
there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to a poseur-
buyer three (3) kilograms, more or less, of methylamphetamine
hydrochloride (shabu), which is a regulated drug.
5


The appellants were duly arraigned and they entered a plea of not
guilty on April 14, 1999.
6
Trial on the merits thereafter took place.

The Prosecutions Version

The record of the case shows that on November 6, 1998, a female
informant told P/Inspector Ramon Arsenal of the Special Operations
Divisions, Narcotics Group, Philippine National Police (PNP) that a
contact was looking for a buyer of huge quantities of methamphetamine
hydrochloride (shabu). The informant also disclosed that the contact
preferred to be paid in casino chips, not in cold cash.
7


Based on this information, P/Inspector Arsenal immediately formed a
team to conduct a buy-bust operation. The team was composed of Police
Officer 3 (PO3) Geronimo Pastrana, who was designated as the poseur-
buyer, P/Inspector Arsenal, and Senior Police Officer 3 (SPO3) Elpidio
Anasta. The deal, as the subsequent agreement showed, was for
P2,000,000.00 worth of shabu. The transaction was to be consummated at
Hotel Sofitels parking lot between 3:00 and 11:00 p.m. the next day.
8


Police Chief Superintendent (P/C Supt.) Emmanuel Licup, the
Finance Officer of the PNP Narcotics Group, secured the casino chips to be
used P2,000,000.00 worth, consisting of four (4) casino chips (each worth
P500,000.00) from Casino Filipino at the Holiday Inn, Manila Pavilion
Hotel.
9

5
CA rollo, p. 19.
6
Id. at 47.
7
Rollo, p. 5.
8
Id. at 7.
9
Id. at 6.

Decision G.R. No. 176269 3
On November 7, 1998, the female informant confirmed the transaction
and the buy-bust team proceeded to Hotel Sofitel at around 1:30 p.m. PO3
Pastrana and the female informant were in a red Honda Civic hatchback with
plate number TKT-461. They parked near the lobby of Hotel Sofitel.
P/Inspector Arsenal and SPO3 Anasta rode on a separate vehicle and they
parked about fifteen (15) meters behind PO3 Pastranas vehicle. Twenty (20)
other operatives of the team strategically positioned themselves throughout
the area.
10


At around 5:30 p.m., a blue Mitsubishi Lancer (plate number WEJ -
310) arrived and parked in front of PO3 Pastranas vehicle. After a few
moments, a man later identified as Monceda alighted and approached the
female informant. The latter introduced PO3 Pastrana as the buyer of shabu.
Monceda first returned to his car, whispered something to his lady
companion, before coming back to PO3 Pastranas vehicle. Monceda
insisted that he needed to see the casino chips, which PO3 Pastrana then
showed him.
11


Monceda circled back to the car to pick up his lady companion, later
identified as Lai. She was carrying a carton box. Monceda introduced Lai to
PO3 Pastrana, at the same time that Lai was giving the carton box to
Monceda who forthwith handed the package to PO3 Pastrana while saying:
Pare, iyan na yung order mong bato, 3 kilo yan.
12


PO3 Pastrana inspected the carton box, which he saw contained three
(3) plastic bags. After confirming that the plastic bags contained shabu, he
placed them at the rear seat of the red Honda Civic hatchback. He then
handed the four casino chips to Monceda who immediately gave them to
Lai. PO3 Pastrana, at that point, gave the pre-arranged signal to the buy-
bust team, prompting them to converge on the transacting parties. When
PO3 Pastrana identified himself as an agent of the PNP Narcotics Group,
Monceda tried to run away but PO3 Pastrana caught him. P/Inspector
Arsenal and SPO3 Anasta, on the other hand, apprehended Lai and, while
doing this, took the chips away from her.
13


The appellants were initially brought to Diamond Hotel where the
high-ranking officers of the Narcotics Group had stationed themselves. PO3
Pastrana surrendered the keys of the red Honda Civic hatchback vehicle,
together with the three plastic bags of shabu, to senior officer Colonel (Col.)
10
Id.
11
Id.
12
Id. at 8.
13
Id.

Decision G.R. No. 176269 4
Arturo Castillo. The bags and their contents were later forwarded to the PNP
Crime Laboratory for chemical analysis. The appellants were brought to the
PNP Headquarters in Camp Crame, Quezon City, and were subjected to
physical examination there.
14


The prosecution and the defense agreed that the testimony of Forensic
Analyst Edwin Zata was to be dispensed with. They further stipulated that:

1. The specimen of shabu, subject matter of this case, with a total weight
of 2,992.4 grams was subjected to laboratory analysis at the PNP
Crime Laboratory, Camp Crame, Quezon City;

2. The laboratory analysis was conducted by Edwin Zata in compliance
with the memorandum of P/Supt. Arthur Maceda Castillo for the
Director of the PNP Crime Laboratory to conduct laboratory
examination of the specimen of shabu, Exhs. F and F-1;

3. The authenticity of the Initial Laboratory Report of Forensic Analyst
Zata, dated November 9, 1998 to the effect that the laboratory
examination of the specimen in question gave positive results for
methamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug, Exhs. G and G-
1;

4. The authenticity of Physical Sciences Report No. D-3649-98 also
issued by Forensic Chemist Zata dated November 9, 1998, to the effect
that the qualitative examination of the specimen gave positive results
for methamphetamine hydrochloride, Exhs. H and H-1;

5. The existence of the three plastic bags of shabu, subject of this case,
Exhs. I, J and K;

6. Forensic Chemist Zata has no personal knowledge as to the source of
shabu in question;

7. The specimen of shabu was forwarded to the Crime Laboratory
Service and received by the said office at 10:55 a.m. but the specimen
was actually received by the Chemistry Division at 11:00 a.m.; and

8. Forensic Chemist Zata only conducted random of the specimen of
shabu. No percentage purity test was conducted.
15




14
Id. at 9.
15
Records II, pp. 16-17; italics ours.

Decision G.R. No. 176269 5
The Version of the Defense

The defense presented a different version of events. The appellants
denied selling the shabu and claimed that they were victims of a frame-up.
Lai, together with five other witnesses, took the witness stand for the
defense, but Monceda declined.

Lai asserted that Monceda was her nephew and that she has been
engaged in various businesses: as a rice retailer, an importer, and a casino
financier. She also claimed to be a member of a Taiwanese association
engaged in lending money to casino players and that she arrived from China
the night before her arrest. She cited this as the reason why she could not
have possibly arranged the drug transaction.
16


Lai further testified that on November 7, 1998, she was at Hotel
Sofitel. She had with her the income of the association amounting to
P2,000,000.00 and US$30,000.00 in cash. She was about to convert the
money to chip checks when she received a call from Monceda who told her
that the police were arresting him at Diamond Hotel. She immediately tried
to leave but J immy Uy, a regular borrower, stopped her to borrow money.
She hurriedly gave him P100,000.00 and told Uy that she would be back
after settling Moncedas problem. Lais son and driver were then waiting at
the Hotel Sofitels lobby and all three left on board her car, a blue Mitsubishi
Lancer, for Diamond Hotel.
17


Lai narrated that on reaching Diamond Hotel, about twenty to thirty
policemen ordered them to alight from their vehicle. They quickly searched
her vehicle for shabu but found the paper bag containing the money instead.
Afterwards, they ordered her to board her car, but her son and her driver
were told to stay. Four policemen boarded her car with her, seating her at the
middle portion of the back seat. They drove around Metro Manila for
several hours.
18


While inside the car, she claimed that she was robbed. Her Rolex
wristwatch, her other pieces of jewelry and the paper bag containing the
money she brought with her were all taken. At around 11:00 p.m., after
hours of driving around Metro Manila, they finally told her to get out of the
vehicle. She refused as it was dangerous to alight at that place, and asked
16
TSN, February 23, 2001, pp. 11-19.
17
Id. at 22-27.
18
Id. at 28-30.

Decision G.R. No. 176269 6
instead to be dropped-off at the nearest police station; she also pleaded for
the return of her properties.
19


Instead of taking her to the police station, they brought her to Camp
Crame where a plastic bag was placed over her head and where she was
repeatedly beaten while being asked where she had hidden the shabu. She
could not give them any answer because she did not know what they were
talking about. When the plastic bag was removed, she was told to
accompany them to her house in Paraaque City. Her tormentors thought
that the shabu was in her cabinet. She consented as she had no choice but to
give in to their demands.
20


Policemen were at her house when they arrived. She also noticed that
her housemaids had been badly beaten. She was forced to open her cabinets
but only her other pieces of jewelry were there, not shabu. These were also
taken from her before she was brought back to Camp Crame. It was only at
that time that she saw Monceda again and she noted that he had also been
badly beaten.
21


On cross-examination, Lai admitted that she knew Monceda to be a
drug user. She explained that Monceda, for a small consideration of
P5,000.00, was hired by a certain Mama Rosa to deliver a package
somewhere in Malate. He used the red Honda Civic hatchback vehicle,
which Lai believed to belong to Mama Rosa and not to PO3 Pastrana.
Monceda was not informed of the contents of the package which turned out
to be the 3 plastic bags of shabu that were recovered from the vehicle. She
insisted that the drugs were not recovered from her blue Mitsubishi Lancer
vehicle.
22


Lais statements were corroborated by Uy, who admitted that he
indeed borrowed P100,000.00 from her while she was talking to someone at
the phone.
23
Lais housemaid and the other defense witnesses also testified
about the incident at Diamond Hotel and at her house.
24




19
Id. at 31-33.
20
Id. at 34-41.
21
Id. at 42-45.
22
TSN, March 30, 2001, pp. 16-18.
23
Records II, pp. 32-33.
24
Id. at 30-36.

Decision G.R. No. 176269 7
The RTC Ruling

On September 20, 2001, the RTC convicted the appellants as charged.
The RTC relied on the presumption of regularity in the buy-bust operation
and rejected the appellants defenses of denial and frame-up. The RTC
declared that the appellants were caught in flagrante delicto while selling
shabu to a poseur-buyer in a buy-bust operation. The seizure of shabu was
considered lawful since it was incident to a lawful arrest. The RTC
sentenced them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine
of P5,000,000.00 each.
25


The appellants appealed to the CA. During the pendency of the
appeal, Monceda committed suicide.

The CA Ruling

The CA affirmed the RTC decision. The CA found that the collective
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were corroborated by the physical
evidence on record. The CA also found Lais defense to be weak, especially
after she failed to present her son and her driver as witnesses. Her defense
was further weakened when no single complaint was ever filed against the
members of the buy-bust team for the abuses they allegedly committed.

The Issues

Lai raised the following assignment of errors:

I.

THE CA ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE
INCREDIBLE TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTION
WITNESSES WHILE TOTALLY DISREGARDING THE
EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE DEFENSE.

II.

THE CA ERRED IN RULING THAT THE NON-
PRESENTATION OF THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT
DID NOT VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED-
APPELLANTS.
25
Records II, p. 52.

Decision G.R. No. 176269 8
III.

THE CA ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS
PROPER HANDLING AND TRANSFER OF THE
CUSTODY OF THE CONFISCATED DRUGS.

Lai argues that the lower courts erred in evaluating the testimonial
evidence by relying mainly on the presumption of regularity: they failed to
give due weight to the possible motive that impelled the police officers to
perpetuate the frame-up. Lai also faults the lower courts for disregarding the
defenses evidence which pointed out the inconsistencies in the testimonies
of the prosecution witnesses. She emphasizes that her testimony was
sufficiently corroborated by the testimony of the other defense witnesses.

Lai also contends that her constitutional right was violated because the
confidential informant was not presented as witness. Lastly, she argues that
the identification of the shabu was not sufficiently proven since the seized
items were not marked at the time she was apprehended and were
improperly handled.

The Courts Ruling

We deny the petition for lack of merit.

In a charge of illegal sale of shabu, the prosecution must prove
beyond reasonable doubt: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, (b) the
identity of the object and the consideration of the sale; and (c) the delivery
of the thing sold and of the payment made.
26
What assumes primary
importance is the proof clearly showing that an illegal transaction actually
took place, and the presentation in court of what was sold as evidence of the
corpus delicti.
27


Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the
credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operations.
We generally defer to the trial courts assessment of the evidence as it had
the opportunity to directly observe the witnesses, their demeanor, and
their credibility on the witness stand.
28


26
People v. Unisa, G.R. No. 185721, September 28, 2011, 658 SCRA 305, 324.
27
The People of the Philippines v. Noel Bartolome y Bajo, G.R. No. 191726, February 6, 2013.
28
People v. Alivio, G.R. No. 177771, May 30, 2011, 649 SCRA 318, 328.

Decision G.R. No. 176269 9
In this case, we find from the records sufficient evidence of the illegal
sale with the accused as the sellers and see no compelling need to re-
evaluate the trial courts assessments.

The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, namely: PO3 Pastrana,
P/Inspector Arsenal, SPO3 Anasta, P/C Supt. Licup, and Col. Castillo were
positive and straightforward. While there existed some inconsistencies in
their individual testimonies compared with one another, these testimonies
considered in their totality leave no doubt in our minds that an illegal
sale of shabu had actually taken place with the accused as the sellers.

We observe that Lai particularly challenges the testimony of
P/Inspector Arsenal for its integrity and believability. At his cross-
examination, P/Inspector Arsenal testified that it was Monceda who carried
the box containing the shabu and who handed the box to Lai, while
Monceda was at the same time introducing Lai to PO3 Pastrana. Lai then
handed the box to PO3 Pastrana who placed it in the red Honda Civic
hatchback.
29
But at the re-direct and re-cross examination, P/Inspector
Arsenal was emphatic that it was Lai herself who carried the box and gave it
to Monceda, who in turn handed it to PO3 Pastrana.
30


We are not persuaded that this inconsistency is sufficient to taint the
prosecutions case to the point that it should fail. The rule is that
inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses, when referring only to minor
details and collateral matters, do not affect either the substance of their
declaration, their veracity, or the weight of their testimony. Such minor
inconsistencies even enhance their veracity as the variances erase any
suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.
31
Besides, P/Inspector Arsenal was on a
separate vehicle, at a some distance from the actual buy-bust transaction. It
is possible that he might have been mixed up and confused on who was
carrying the box containing shabu. But this uncertainty is a minor matter in
the context of what had been sufficiently proven as a whole. What is
material to consider is that the transacting parties were there, together with
the red box that contained the shabu; the order by which the box was
handled is not all that important and material given that it passed from the
appellants and ultimately to PO3 Pastrana. In other words, the illegal
transaction had indeed taken place. Significantly, PO3 Pastrana, the poseur-
buyer and the one who directly received the drugs, was unwavering in his
testimony that it was Lai who was carrying the box:

29
Records II, p. 14.
30
Id. at 15-16.
31
People v. Khor, 366 Phil. 762, 790.

Decision G.R. No. 176269 10
Q: After you were introduced by your confidential agent, what
transpired next?
A: He went back to his car and he whispered something to his
lady companion and then came back to me. He insisted that
he be shown the casino chips. And after I showed them to
him, he went back to his car.

Q: After he return[ed] to his car, what happened next?
A: A woman alighted from the car and the two of them
approached me. The lady was carrying a carton and she
was introduced to me by William Sy mentioning her name
as Yu Yuk Lai. After the introduction, Yu Yuk Lai handed
the carton she was carrying to William Sy who in turn
handed it to me saying Pare, iyan na iyong order mong
bato, 3 kilo iyan.

Q: When that carton box was handed to you by William Sy,
what did you do?
A: I examined the contents of the carton to ascertain if it is
shabu. Then I placed the carton inside our car and I got the
4 casino chips and gave them to William Sy. After that, I
executed the pre-arranged signal and I introduced myself as
Narcom Agent. At this point, William Sy tried to escape
but I got hold of him. (interrupted).
x x x x

Q: During the last hearing, you identified the carton box
containing 3 plastic bags containing shabu, could you tell
us what is the relation of that box that you mentioned and
the shabu inside it to that you identified during the last
hearing?
A: Those were the items handed to me by William Sy during
the buy-bust operation.
32


In People v. Zheng Bai Hui,
33
we held that like the defense of alibi,
frame-up is an allegation that can easily be concocted. For this claim to
prosper, the defense must adduce clear and convincing evidence to
overcome the presumption of regularity of official acts of government
officials.

Lai, unfortunately for her, failed to corroborate her statements
regarding the alleged arrest which occurred at Diamond Hotel. Her presented
witnesses all testified on the events before or after her arrest. Lais lone
testimony regarding the circumstances of arrest at Diamond Hotel, on the
other hand, failed to overcome the positive and credible testimony showing
32
TSN, September 15, 1999, pp. 16-18; italics ours.
33
393 Phil. 68, 135 (2000).

Decision G.R. No. 176269 11
the existence of the buy-bust operation at Sofitel Hotel. Worse, the two
persons, her son and her driver, who accompanied her during the alleged
arrest at Diamond Hotel, and who could have possibly shed light to her
version of the events both refused to testify. We find this development
perplexing and is a matter which greatly weakened Lais frame-up
allegations.

No prior surveillance and non-
presentation of the informant

Lai next argues that the absence of any prior surveillance casts doubt
on the veracity of the buy-bust operation. This argument, in our view, suffers
from obvious lack of merit.

We have held that prior surveillance is not necessary to render a buy-
bust operation legitimate, especially when the buy-bust team is accompanied
at the target area by the informant.
34
Similarly, the presentation of an
informant as a witness is not regarded as indispensable to the success in
prosecuting drug-related cases.
35
It is only when the testimony of the
informant is considered absolutely essential in obtaining the conviction of
the culprit should the need to protect his identity be disregarded.
36
In this
case, the informant had actively participated in the buy-bust operation and
her testimony, if presented, would merely corroborate the testimonies of the
members of the buy-bust team.

Neither can Lai question the authenticity of the casino chips. The
testimonies of P/C Supt. Licup and the treasury head of Casino Filipino
clearly explained how P/C Supt. Licup procured the chips the day before the
buy-bust operation.
37
These casino chips were photocopied, marked, and
properly presented in court during the trial.
38


The chain of custody

The existence of the drug is the corpus delicti of the crime of illegal
possession of dangerous drugs and is an essential element to secure a
conviction. It is on this point that all doubts on the identity of the evidence
should be removed through the monitoring and tracking of the movement of
34
People v. Abedin, G.R. No. 179936, April 11, 2012, 669 SCRA 322, 336.
35
People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, J uly 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 430, 445-446.
36
Supra note 27.
37
TSN, J anuary 10, 2000, pp. 1-33.
38
Records, p. 27.

Decision G.R. No. 176269 12
the seized drugs from the accused, to the police, to the forensic chemist, and
finally to the court.
39


Lais argument relies heavily on a photograph
40
taken by the buy-bust
operatives, which shows that the carton box was actually wrapped in a red
and white plastic bag. Lai quoted the testimony of PO3 Pastrana:

Q: Before you placed the carton box inside your Hunchback
Honda Civic, did you wrap it?
x x x x
A: No, sir.

Q: Are you aware that pictures were taken of the stuff that was
placed in the rear seat of your Honda Civic Hunchback?
A: I do not know about that, sir.

Court: You show him the picture if there is a picture.

Atty. Mejia: Yes, Your Honor.

Q: I am showing to you a picture which purports to have been
taken on November 7, 1998, are you familiar with the items
and personalities depicted in that picture?
A: Yes, I am familiar, sir.
41

x x x x

Q: Now, are you aware, Mr. Witness that the red plastic box
which Major Suan and Col. Ruiz are shown in this picture
as in the process of urbaning allegedly contained the
cartoon box which you placed at the rear seat of your car?
A: What was handed to me was a cartoon box and it was not
contained in a plastic bag as shown in the picture.

COURT: Are you sure about that?
A: Itong pinapakita sa akin, sigurado ako dahil hindi ko
nakita yan.

COURT: So, its only now that you saw this plastic bag colored red
and white which is supposed to contain the [carton], this is
the first time you saw this plastic bag?
A: [Its] only now, sir.
42

39
People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 173480, February 25, 2009, 580 SCRA 259, 274.
40
Records, pp. 531-533.
41
TSN, October 6, 1999, p. 23.
42
Id. at 23-25; italics and emphases ours.

Decision G.R. No. 176269 13
Lai, however, fails to consider that at the time the photographs were
taken at Diamond Hotel, PO3 Pastrana was no longer around to witness the
events. He had already turned over the seized items to Col. Castillo at
Diamond Hotel before he left; thus, he cannot possibly testify on the
condition of the seized items when the photographs were taken.
43
During the
cross-examination of PO3 Pastrana, he said:

Q: Are you telling the Honorable Court, that immediately after
the confidential agent parked the car at the parking area in
front of the Diamond Hotel, she left the premises?
A: Yes, sir.
x x x x

Q: Who turned over the key, you or the confidential
informant?
A: I was the one, sir.

Q: But you did not remove the [carton] box at the rear seat of
the Honda Hunchback?
A: No more, sir.

Q: And you were no longer around when pictures were taken
of the stuff that you allegedly confiscated?
A: I was not anymore present, sir.
44


After the incidents at Diamond Hotel, the seized goods were taken to
Camp Crame where PO3 Pastrana identified the carton box and the three
plastic bags containing shabu, before marking his initials over them.
45
These
were then turned over to the project officer for submission to laboratory
examination. The testimony of Col. Castillo is substantial if only to prove
that there was proper handling and transfer of the seized goods after the
specimens were surrendered to him:

Q: And you were the one [who] personally brought the
[carton] box containing plastic bags?
A: Yes, sir, because it was under my direct custody already,
sir.

Q: At your office, what did you do [to] them in connection
with this case?
43
TSN, J anuary 12, 2000, pp. 36-40.
44
TSN, October 13, 1999, p. 5.
45
Records II, p. 19.

Decision 14 G.R. No. 176269
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
I waited for the operating elements and when Major Suan
arrived, I called for him and turned over these evidences to
him as much as he is the project officer on case, sir.
Now, in connection with this case, Mr. Witness, do you
recall whether you requested for laboratory examination?
Yes, sir, I did.
xx xx
After this request, what else did you do in connection with
this case?
I went to my office and routine procedure having turned
over to the group of Major Suan already all these evidences
for whatever follow-up they want to undertake.
46
Based on these considerations, we conclude that there was proper
handling and transfer of the confiscated items. To recapitulate, it has been
clearly established that after SPO 1 Pastrana seized the carton box and the
three packs of shabu from the appellants, they were endorsed to Col.
Castillo, who, in tum, personally delivered them to Camp Crame where they
were properly marked. The Initial Laboratory Report of Forensic Analyst
Zata also shows that the specimens that were analyzed were the same
specimens that P03 Pastrana had marked and that the prosecution
subsequently presented in court.
47
In convicting an accused for drug-related offenses, it is essential
that the identity of the drugs must be established with the same unwavering
exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt.
48
In this case, we see
no irregularity on the part of the buy-bust operatives as to break the required
chain of custody which could warrant the acquittal of Lai.
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing premises, we hereby
DISMISS the appeal for lack of merit, and accordingly AFFIRM the
decision dated May 30, 2005 and the resolution dated September 13, 2006
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00434. Costs against Yu
Yuk Lai.
46
47
48
SO ORDERED.
TSN, January 12, 2000, pp. 29-32.
Records I, p. 25.
r t ~ D
Associate Justice
Sales v. People, G.R. No. 182296, April 7, 2009, 584 SCRA 680, 688-689.
"'
Decision
WE CONCUR:
15
Associate Justice
Chairperson
G.R. No. 176269

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice
11Afi. rt.LMI
ESTELA M!P:f:RLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.
ANTONIO T. CA
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the
Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
Chief Justice