22 PEOPLE vs PETER FANG y GAMBOA aka "Fritz" & JEFFERSON FANG y PERALTA  The confiscated sachets of shabu were
scated sachets of shabu were marked and an inventory of the
G.R. No. 199874 | July 23, 2014
Topic: Object as evidence | Ponente: J. Perez | Author: Lorenzo
Doctrine: The failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the
required physical inventory in the place where the subject shabu was seized does not
automatically render accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized from him inadmissible. A
proviso was added in the implementing rules that "non-compliance with these requirements
under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items and its integrity are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not
render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items."
Emergency Recit: Accused was caught in flagrante delicto during a buy-bust
operation. RTC, CA, and SC found him guilty due to the prosecution's evidence. The
chain of custody was not broken. The evidentiary value and the integrity of the
confiscated drugs were preserved. (SEE DOCTRINE)
Facts:
 On the 7th day of August 2004 in Baguio, the accused was caught in a buy-
bust operation selling and/or distributing to PO2 Lobus, a member of the
CIDG-CAR, who posed as buyer, Shabu weighing 0.04 gram contained in a
heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet for ₱500.00.
 Appellant pleaded not guilty. Trial ensued. The prosecution presented as
witnesses: Police Chief Inspector Pacatiw, PO2 Lubos who acted as poseur-
buyer; Police Inspector Montes, the forensic chemist; PO2 San Andres, a
back-up operative who assisted a certain Officer Sabo; and PO1 Mariano,
who transmitted the drug confiscated to the PNP Crime Lab.
 TESTIMONIES OF PROSECUTION: Acting on a tip from an informant that a
certain "Fritz" and "Kaday" were selling shabu at the Slaughter Compound in
Brgy Sto. Nino, a buy-bust team was formed. At around 3:10 p.m. of the
same date, the buy-bust team reached the area and PO2 Lubos and the
informant went to the house where the alleged illegal drug activity was
taking place. The informant knocked on the door and a certain Fritz, who
was later identified as appellant, and Kaday, who was later identified as
appellant’s son, Jefferson Fang (Jefferson), came out of the house.
Thereafter, the informant and appellant approached PO2 Lubos, and
appellant asked the latter how much will he get. PO2 Lubos answered
"limampiso lang," which means Five Hundred Pesos. Appellant asked about
the money prompting PO2 Lubos to bring out the Five Hundred Peso bill
and hand it to appellant. In turn, appellant brought out 2 small sachets of
shabuand gave it to PO2 Lubos. After examining the same, PO2 Lubosmade
the pre-arranged signal of removing his cap. The back-up police operatives
emerged and arrested appellant, and SPO4 Lucas frisked appellant and was
able to recover the buy-bust money and another sachet of shabu from his
pocket. Police Chief Inspector Pacatiw frisked Jefferson and recovered two
sachets of marijuana. After informing the accused of their constitutional
rights, they were placed under arrest and brought to the CAR-CIDG.
seized items was made. The seized items were later brought to the CIDG.
Police Inspector Montes in her Chemistry Report found that the seized
plastic sachets are positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
 DEFENSE OF ACCUSED: Denied the charges and claimed that he was
sleeping at around 3pm of 7 August 2004 when he was awakened by his
sister who told him that several men entered their house. Appellant came
out and saw men searching the cabinet. Appellant went back to his room
to search for a weapon when one armed man demanded that he open the
door of his room. Appellant obliged and two more men entered his room
and conducted a search. The armed men took ₱2,500.00 cash and his
cellphone. Thereafter, appellant and his son were forced to go with the
armed men to the CIDG office.
 TESTIMONY OF CO-ACCUSED: He and appellant were brought to the CIDG
station where he was charged for illegal possession of drugs. Jefferson
denied the charges against him and his father.
 RTC Fritz (accused) is guilty of violation of Section 5, Article II of RA. 9165,
and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a ₱500,000.00
fine. Jefferson was acquitted. The prosecution has proven the guilt of
appellant beyond reasonable doubt by competent object and testimonial
evidence. CA affirmed the judgment of the RTC.
 Appellant appealed his conviction before the SC.
Issue/s: W/N the evidentiary value and integrity of the confiscated shabu were
preserved? YES. (SEE DOCTRINE)
Ruling: We agree with the lower courts’ unanimous finding that the guilt of the
appellant was established beyond reasonable doubt.
In every prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be
sufficiently proved: (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 therefor.
Appellant was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu in a buy-bust operation.
The poseur-buyer, PO2 Lubos, positively testified that the sale took place; that
appellant was the author thereof; that appellant produced the plastic sachet
containing shabu and handed it to the poseur-buyer in exchange for ₱500.00
The result of the laboratory examination, as testified to by the forensic chemist,
confirmed the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride. 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. This was further corroborated
by the presentation of the marked money in evidence.
Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 provides for the custody
and disposition of the confiscated illegal drugs, to wit:

The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs
shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory
and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s
from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the
Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.

This rule was elaborated in Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, viz:

The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs
shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and
photograph the same inthe presence of the accused or the person/s from whom
such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative
orcounsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice
(DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies
of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical
inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search
warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of
the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case or
warrantless arrest; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of
and custody over said items.

The prosecution was able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the said
illegal drugs. The concurrence of all elements of the illegal sale of shabu was
proven by the prosecution. Moreover, 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.

The chain of custody does not appear to have been broken. The recovery and
handling of the seized drugs were satisfactorily established. As correctly found by
the appellate court, "no ‘break’ whatsoever in the chain of custody of the
prohibited drugs occurred. The testimonial, documentary, and object evidence
presented by the prosecution established every link in the custody of the prohibited
drugs. This leads to no other conclusion than that the specimen examined by the
forensic chemist, which tested positive for shabu, and which were presented as
evidence during the trial, were the ones taken from accused-appellant during the
buy-bust operation."