Case Digest (G.R. No. 258060)
Facts:
Jerry Barayuga y Joaquin v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 248382, July 28, 2020, Supreme Court First Division, Lazaro‑Javier, J., writing for the Court.The petitioner, Jerry Barayuga y Joaquin, was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 for allegedly selling one heat‑sealed plastic sachet containing 0.0803 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) to a police poseur‑buyer on May 30, 2012 in Laoag City. He pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented testimony from members of the buy‑bust team (PO1 Jackson Sugayen, SPO4 Rovimanuel Balolong, and others whose testimonies were stipulatably admitted) and offered the Letter Request for Laboratory Examination, Inventory of Evidence, and Chemistry Report showing a positive qualitative test for methamphetamine by forensic chemist P/Insp Amiely Ann Navarro. Petitioner testified in his own defense, denying knowledge of the seized sachet and alleging coercion and planting by the police.
The Regional Trial Court convicted petitioner on January 30, 2015, sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine, and ordered confiscation of the shabu. The Court of Appeals in CA‑G.R. CR HC No. 07395 affirmed that conviction by Decision dated May 28, 2018; it later issued a Resolution dated September 19, 2018 ordering the entry of judgment because petitioner failed to file a notice of appeal within the reglementary period, and denied reconsideration by Resolution dated July 10, 2019. Petitioner, alleging that his retained counsel failed to inform him or to perfect an appeal and asserting defects in the prosecution’s chain of c...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in refusing to lift the entry of judgment and in not allowing petitioner to prosecute an appeal given his counsel’s conduct?
- Did the arresting officers comply with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations so that the seized substance admitted at trial was properly authen...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)