Title
People vs. Agulay y Lopez
Case
G.R. No. 181747
Decision Date
Sep 26, 2008
In the case of People v. Agulay y Lopez, a man is convicted for the illegal sale and possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) based on a buy-bust operation, but is later acquitted due to the prosecution's failure to establish the chain of custody of the seized items and prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 181747)

Facts:

  • Narciso Agulay y Lopez was charged with the illegal sale and possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).
  • The charges stemmed from a buy-bust operation on August 24, 2002, in Quezon City.
  • An informant reported that a person named "Sing" was selling shabu in Barangay Sta. Lucia, Novaliches, Quezon City.
  • A police team was formed, with PO2 Raul Herrera acting as the poseur-buyer.
  • Herrera purchased shabu from Agulay using a marked P100 bill.
  • Upon the pre-arranged signal, the police arrested Agulay and recovered additional sachets of shabu from his pocket.
  • The seized items were submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory, which confirmed they were shabu.
  • Agulay was charged and found guilty by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 103.
  • He was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.
  • The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision.
  • Agulay appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that his arrest was illegal and that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  1. The Supreme Court ruled that the arrest of Narciso Agulay y Lopez was legal and that the sachets of shabu recovered from him were admissible as evidence.
  2. The Court found that the prosecution had proven Agulay's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
  3. ...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court upheld the legality of the buy-bust operation, stating it was a valid form of entrapment and did not require a warrant.
  • The Court emphasized the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the police officers, as there was no evidence of bad faith or ill motive.
  • The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved, despite the defense's claims of non-compliance with procedural requirements under Section 21 of Republ...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.