Case Digest (G.R. No. 242132)
Facts:
Nor Jelamin Musa, Ivan Usop Bito, and Monsour Abdulrakman Abdilla v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 242132, September 25, 2019, First Division, Perlas-Bernabe, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Musa, Bito, and Abdilla were charged in an Amended Information with violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for allegedly transporting 18.4349 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (“shabu”) from Pagalungan, Maguindanao to Governor Generoso, Davao Oriental on July 22, 2014. They pleaded not guilty and were tried before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lupon, Davao Oriental, Branch 32.
The prosecution’s case rested on a confidential tip that a white multi-cab (plate NBD‑279, marking “Jarus Jeth”) would bring illegal drugs to Governor Generoso; a police team set up a checkpoint, chased an evading multi-cab, and later found the vehicle stopped near a hut where petitioners stood. Officers testified that Abdilla handed over a heat‑sealed plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance; the seized item was marked, inventoried, photographed (the prosecution later could not produce photographs), and submitted for laboratory testing which returned positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
At trial petitioners denied being occupants of the multi‑cab or transporting drugs, maintaining they had gone to fish and were accosted by police who frisked and detained them. The RTC, in a June 22, 2016 Judgment, convicted all three of transport of illegal drugs and imposed life imprisonment and fines, finding (a) the vehicle matched the confidential information and evaded the checkpoint, (b) petitioners alighted from the vehicle and were found nearby, and (c) the sachet was recovered from Abdilla; the RTC also held the chain of custody was observed.
Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). In a January 30, 2018 Decision the CA affirmed the RTC, ruling the warrantless seizure/arrest was a valid exception (search of a moving vehicle), that transport was proved from police testimony,...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that petitioners committed the offense of transporting dangerous drugs as defined in Section 5, Article II of RA 9165?
- If transport was not proved, may petitioners nevertheless be convicted for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 by application of the variance doctrine?
- Was the chain of custody of the seized drug properly established to preserve...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)