FACTS:

Appellants Alfredo Concepcion and Henry Concepcion, together with accused Hegino dela Cruz, were convicted of Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). According to the prosecution, a buy-bust operation was planned based on information from a confidential informant. The appellants and dela Cruz were observed arriving in a van and appellant Alfredo Concepcion handed two plastic packs of shabu to a member of the buy-bust team. The team then arrested the appellants and dela Cruz and recovered a plastic sachet from the van's glove compartment. The laboratory examination confirmed that the recovered items contained shabu. The defense presented witnesses, including appellant Alfredo Concepcion, who denied the charges and claimed that they were already at the PDEA headquarters at the time of the alleged sale. The trial court denied the demurrers to evidence filed by the appellants and dela Cruz. The trial court convicted appellants Alfredo and Henry and acquitted accused Hegino dela Cruz.

After the trial court's decision, the appellants filed a Notice of Appeal, which was approved and transmitted to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellants then filed a Notice of Appeal with representation from the Public Attorney's Office (PAO), but did not file supplemental briefs. They argued that the relevant issues had already been discussed in their initial briefs before the Court of Appeals.

Lastly, the trial court credited the entire period of the appellants' preventive imprisonment and ordered the forfeiture of the drugs in favor of the government.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the failure to present the physical inventory and photograph of the seized evidence in accordance with Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 renders the arrested illegal and the evidence inadmissible.

2. Whether the buy-bust operation was coordinated with the PDEA.

3. Whether the buy-bust operation was coordinated with the PDEA.

4. Whether the failure of the arresting officers to inform the accused of their constitutional rights upon arrest leads to their acquittal.

5. Whether the prosecution failed to prove that a proper buy-bust operation was conducted.

6. Whether the elements of the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs were proven beyond reasonable doubt.

7. Whether the failure to record the boodle money used in a buy-bust operation renders the operation illegal.

8. Whether the absence of marked money creates a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution of sale of dangerous drugs.

9. Whether the simultaneous exchange of money and prohibited drugs is required for a buy-bust operation.

10. Whether the mere act of delivery of prohibited drugs is punishable under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.

11. Whether the defense of frame-up and denial of participation in the buy-bust operation is credible.

12. Whether the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties of the police officers was overcome.

13. Whether the defense witnesses' inconsistencies affect their credibility.

14. Whether appellants are guilty of sale and delivery of dangerous drugs.

15. Whether the appellants could be convicted of possession of dangerous drugs even though they were not charged with such offense in the information.

RULING:

1. The failure to present the physical inventory and photograph of the seized evidence does not render the arrest illegal or the evidence inadmissible. While non-compliance with Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 is not fatal, the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items is of utmost importance. In this case, the integrity of the drugs seized was shown to be intact. The chain of custody of the drugs was not broken, and the drugs seized from appellants were the same ones examined in the crime laboratory.

2. The argument that the buy-bust operation was not coordinated with the PDEA is deemed specious. There was no showing that the coordination with the PDEA was required or that the lack of coordination affected the integrity of the operation and the evidence obtained.

3. The argument that the buy-bust operation was not coordinated with the PDEA is rejected. The testimonies of the defense witnesses clearly show that they were aware that the buy-bust operation was conducted by the elements of the PDEA. The defense's admission of coordination with Barangays Guyong and Poblacion further contradicts this argument.

4. The failure of the arresting officers to inform the accused of their constitutional rights upon arrest does not lead to their acquittal. Such alleged illegalities should have been raised before arraignment and not after a valid information has been filed, the accused arraigned, and trial completed.

5. The claim that the prosecution failed to prove a proper buy-bust operation was conducted is untenable. The conduct of a buy-bust operation is a common and accepted mode of apprehending those involved in the illegal sale of prohibited drugs. Unless there is clear and convincing evidence of improper motive or failure to perform duty, the testimony of the buy-bust team deserves full faith and credit.

6. The elements of the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs, namely the accused sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another and knew that what was sold and delivered was a dangerous drug, were clearly established in this case. The prosecution presented evidence that the accused sold and delivered shabu (confirmed through laboratory tests) to the PDEA agent posing as a poseur-buyer.

7. The failure to record the boodle money used in a buy-bust operation does not render the operation illegal. Recording the marked money is not an element for the prosecution of sale of illegal drugs. The sale of the prohibited drug must be adequately proven.

8. The absence of marked money does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution as long as the sale of dangerous drugs is adequately proven and the drug subject of the transaction is presented before the court. The presentation of marked money is not required.

9. Simultaneous exchange of money and prohibited drugs is not required in a buy-bust operation. The transaction and sale can be considered consummated even if the exchange does not happen simultaneously.

10. The mere act of delivery of prohibited drugs is punishable under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The payment of any consideration is immaterial in the distribution of prohibited drugs.

11. The defense of frame-up and denial of participation in the buy-bust operation is not credible when unsubstantiated by any credible and convincing evidence. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties remains unless the defense presents clear and convincing evidence of improper motive or failure to perform their duties.

12. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties of the police officers was not overcome. There was no evidence showing improper motive or failure to perform their duties.

13. Inconsistencies in the defense witnesses' testimonies affect their credibility. In this case, the inconsistencies diminish the credibility of the defense witnesses.

14. Appellants are guilty of sale and delivery of dangerous drugs based on the conspiracy between them and the establishment of the buy-bust operation.

15. The appellants cannot be convicted of possession of dangerous drugs when they were not charged with such offense in the information. However, they can still be convicted of selling and delivering the drugs as charged.

PRINCIPLES:

• Non-compliance with Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 does not render an arrest illegal or the evidence inadmissible. What matters is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.

• The coordination of a buy-bust operation with the PDEA is not always required, and the lack of coordination may not affect the validity of the operation or the admissibility of the evidence.

• The coordination with the PDEA is not necessary for the buy-bust operation to be valid.

• Failure to inform the accused of their constitutional rights upon arrest does not invalidate the arrest or lead to acquittal.

• The absence of prior surveillance or a test buy does not affect the legality of a buy-bust operation.

• The recording of marked boodle money is not required for the buy-bust operation to be legal.

• The determination of the credibility of witnesses is best left to the trial court, which had the advantage of observing their conduct and demeanor during trial.

• The failure to record boodle money does not render a buy-bust operation illegal.

• The absence of marked money does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution of sale of dangerous drugs.

• Simultaneous exchange of money and prohibited drugs is not required in a buy-bust operation.

• The mere act of delivery of prohibited drugs is punishable under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.

• The defense of frame-up and denial of participation in a buy-bust operation must be substantiated by credible and convincing evidence.

• The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties applies to police officers unless clear and convincing evidence of improper motive or failure to perform their duties is presented.

• Inconsistencies in the testimonies of defense witnesses affect their credibility.

• An accused cannot be convicted of an offense without being properly charged for it.

• In a criminal case, the offense charged must be specifically alleged in the information.

• The penalty for selling any dangerous drug, regardless of the quantity and purity, is life imprisonment and a fine.

• With the prohibition of the death penalty, the penalty to be imposed shall only be life imprisonment and a fine.