Case Digest (G.R. No. 213918)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Evangeline Abella y Sedego and Mae Ann Sendiong, G.R. No. 213918, June 27, 2018, Supreme Court Third Division, Martires, J., writing for the Court.The criminal prosecutions arose from buy‑bust operations conducted in Dumaguete City on 19 January 2009. The People of the Philippines charged Evangeline Abella y Sedego and Mae Ann Sendiong in two informations: Criminal Case No. 19359 (amended) accused both of illegal sale in violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165; Criminal Case No. 19381 charged Sendiong with unlawful possession under Sec. 11, Art. II of the same statute. Both pleaded not guilty and were tried jointly before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 30, Dumaguete City.
The prosecution presented PDEA and police officers (including SPO1 Manuel Sanchez, SPO1 Allen June Germodo, PO2 Glenn Corsame, SPO2 Douglas Ferrer, SI Nicanor Tagle, and PCI Josephine Llena) and poseur‑buyer Urseevi Tubio. The prosecution’s account was that a surveillance on 18 January 2009 confirmed drug dealing by the accused; a buy‑bust on 19 January 2009 used Tubio as poseur‑buyer, who paid marked money and received a heat‑sealed sachet; officers seven meters away effected the arrest after a prearranged signal; the sachets were marked at the scene (“EM‑BB” and “MS‑P”), inventoried in the presence of witnesses (including DOJ and barangay representatives), photographed, submitted to the forensic laboratory the same day, and tested by PCI Llena who found 0.01 gram methamphetamine hydrochloride in each sachet and positive urine tests for the accused.
The accused testified to a contrary narrative: Abella said she was at a laundry job and was forced out, handcuffed and searched with nothing found; Sendiong said she was waiting to borrow money for her child’s medication and was suddenly arrested, also producing no incriminating items. They challenged the credibility of the buy‑bust operation and the chain of custody of the seized sachets.
The RTC convicted both Abella and Sendiong for sale (Crim. Case No. 19359) and convicted Sendiong for possession (Crim. Case No. 19381), imposing penalties in accordance with R.A. No. 9165 and ordering forfeiture of the seized sachets. The court found the prosecution witnesses credible, held that the buy‑bust was legitimate entrapment (not instigation), and that the chain of custody was intact. The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
The CA, in CA‑G.R. CR‑HC No. 01412, affirmed the RTC decision in toto on 17 June 2014, again crediting the prosecution, rejecting claims...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused‑appellants for illegal sale (Sec. 5, Art. II, R.A. No. 9165) and unlawful possession (Sec. 11, Art. II, R.A. No. 9165)?
- Did the prosecution establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized sachets from seizure to presentation in court?
- Is the alleged conflict between the testimony of the PDEA asset (Tubio) and the police officers as to who acted as the poseur‑buyer fatal to...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)