Case Digest (G.R. No. 201293)
Facts:
Joel A. Largo v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 201293, June 19, 2019, Supreme Court Second Division, Lazaro-Javier, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Joel A. Largo was charged in Criminal Case No. CBU-75585 with violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (illegal possession of a dangerous drug) for alleged possession of a heat-sealed sachet containing 0.05 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) seized on November 28, 2005 at the Carbon Public Market in Cebu City.On arraignment Largo pleaded not guilty and went to trial. The prosecution presented testimony of Barangay tanods Vicente Bosque and Venancio Catalan, and Chemistry Report No. D-1806-2005 from the PNP Crime Laboratory (P/Sr. Insp. David Alexander Patriana). The prosecution’s theory was that while patrolling the market the tanods saw people scatter, observed petitioner flick a plastic sachet which Bosque retrieved, held it until the police station, and turned it over to Police Investigator SPO1 Romeo Abellana for laboratory examination. The defense testified that petitioner had been accosted and detained by the barangay tanods, was not apprised of rights or investigated properly, and that procedural irregularities attended his detention; documentary exhibits included a police blotter certification and a resolution by a prosecutor recommending dismissal.
The trial court found petitioner guilty on April 4, 2008 and sentenced him to 12 years and one day to 15 years imprisonment and a fine of P350,000, giving credence to the tanods’ testimony and ruling that despite imperfect compliance with the chain of custody the integrity of the seized sachet was preserved. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
On appeal in CA-G.R. CEB-CR No. 00940, the Court of Appeals, by Decision dated November 30, 2010, affirmed the conviction; its Resolution dated February 29, 2012 denied reconsideration. Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari asking the Supreme Court to exercise its discretionary appellate jurisdiction (Rule 45) to overturn the Court of Appeals’ dispositions. The petition principally challenged (1) the validity of the warrantless arrest and resulting seizu...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was petitioner’s warrantless arrest valid, or was the objection thereto waived?
- Did the prosecution sufficiently establish the chain of custody and therefore the identity and integrity of the seized drug (the cor...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)