Case Digest (G.R. No. 224143)
Facts:
Kevin Belmonte y Goromeo v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 224143, June 28, 2017, Supreme Court First Division, Perlas-Bernabe, J., writing for the Court.The criminal cases arose from two Informations filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Fernando City, La Union: Criminal Case No. 8979 charging Kevin Belmonte, Mark Anthony Gumba y Villaraza (then 17 years old), and Billy Joe Costales with violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (illegal sale of marijuana), and Criminal Case No. 8997 charging Gumba with violating Section 11, Article II thereof (possession). The prosecution alleged a buy‑bust operation on November 23, 2010, in San Gabriel, La Union: PDEA Agent Sharon Ominga acted as poseur‑buyer, Intelligence Officer Ranel Canero as arresting officer, and PDEA‑QRF and PNP‑PAIDSOTG members as back‑up. The confidential informant arranged the sale; Ominga prepared four marked P500 bills. At the cemetery, Gumba and two companions (later identified as Belmonte and Costales) met the poseur‑buyer; a bundle was handed over, Ominga declared the agents, and Gumba and Belmonte were arrested while Costales escaped with the marked money. The black bag yielded four additional wrapped bricks; Ominga marked, photographed, and inventoried the items and later delivered them with a laboratory request to PDEA chemist Lei‑Yen Valdez, who confirmed the specimens as marijuana.
The accused pleaded not guilty and each advanced defenses: Belmonte and Gumba claimed they were visiting a cemetery after borrowing money; Costales asserted alibi and later voluntarily surrendered. After joint trial, the RTC (Branch 30, Judge Alpino P. Florendo) in a Decision dated November 23, 2011 found Belmonte, Gumba, and Costales guilty of illegal sale (Crim. Case No. 8979) and sentenced Belmonte and Costales to life imprisonment and P500,000 fines; Gumba, being a minor at the time, received a lesser term and fine. Gumba was likewise convicted in Crim. Case No. 8997 for possession. The RTC relied on the poseur‑buyer’s identification, the marking/inventory/photographs, and the chemist’s report, and found conspiracy among the accused.
The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA‑G.R. CR‑H.C. No. 05362. In a Decision dated June 30, 2015 (Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate‑Laguilles, penned), the CA affirmed the RTC, holding that the prosecution established a continuous chain of custody and that the later signing of the Certificate of Inventory at a different place did not fatally affect the exhibits’ evidentiary value. Reconsideration was denied by CA Resolution dated March 14, 2016. Belmonte then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to th...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Should the conviction of Kevin Belmonte for illegal sale under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 be upheld given alleged defects in the chain of custody and inventory...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)