Case Digest (G.R. No. 181318)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. German Agojo y Luna, G.R. No. 181318, April 16, 2009, Supreme Court Second Division, Tinga, J., writing for the Court. The appellant is German Agojo y Luna; the appellee is People of the Philippines.On August 27, 1999 a buy‑bust operation was conducted in front of Mercado Hospital, Tanauan, Batangas after civilian informant Rodolfo Alonzo negotiated with the appellant for 200 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (“shabu”) at P70,000 per 100 grams. Alonzo, acting as a poseur‑buyer under Police Chief Inspector Ablang’s direction, was given marked money and a signal (remove his cap) to notify the buy‑bust team once the transaction was completed. According to the prosecution, Agojo arrived by car at about 11:30 p.m., accepted partial payment, handed Alonzo a VHS cassette box which upon inspection contained four plastic sachets later identified by PNP chemist Lorna Tria as methamphetamine hydrochloride weighing a total of 206.32 grams. Appellant resisted arrest; police recovered P10,000 of the marked money from him and found a .45 pistol with seven rounds in his car.
Appellant was charged in two Informations: (1) sale of regulated drugs in violation of Section 15, Article III of R.A. No. 6425 (Criminal Case No. P‑892); and (2) illegal possession of a firearm in violation of P.D. No. 1866 as amended by R.A. No. 8294 (Criminal Case No. P‑891). He pleaded not guilty and stood trial before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tanauan, Batangas. The prosecution presented Alonzo and members of the buy‑bust team (including SPO4 Calapati and PO3 Salazar) whose testimony described the sale, the signal, recovery of the VHS tape and the chain of custody leading to laboratory examination. Appellant testified, denying the sale and asserting a frame‑up; he claimed he was at the hospital for his hospitalized wife and that police later took cash and jewelry from him.
In a Decision dated November 11, 2002, the RTC (presided by Judge Voltaire Y. Rosales) found Agojo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 15 of R.A. No. 6425 and sentenced him to death and a P500,000 fine, but acquitted him of the firearm charge for lack of evidence. Because the trial court imposed the death penalty, the drug conviction was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review.
Agojo moved for a new trial ad cautelam, submitting a BSP certification suggesting discrepancies in serial numbers of marked money; the Solicitor General opposed the motion as lacking merit. Pursuant to this Court’s ruling in People v. Mateo (G.R. Nos. 147678‑87, July 7, 2004), the case was transferred to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review. On March 30, 2007 the Court of Appeals in CA‑G.R. CR‑H.C. No. 00946 (de Leon, J., penned) affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua in view of R.A. No. 9346 (abolishing the death penalty) and its finding that aggravating circumstances were not proven.
The case retur...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the appellant’s guilt of illegal sale of shabu proven beyond reasonable doubt?
- Did the appellant establish that he was framed up by the buy‑bust team?
- Did alleged defects in the marked money, partial recovery of buy‑bust funds, or chain‑of‑custody lapses defeat th...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)