Case Digest (G.R. No. 184789)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Beverly Alagarme y Citoy, G.R. No. 184789, February 23, 2015, Supreme Court First Division, Bersamin, J., writing for the Court.The accused-appellant, Beverly Alagarme y Citoy, was charged in two informations filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 64, Makati City: Criminal Case No. 05-568 for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (alleged sale of 0.03 gram methylamphetamine hydrochloride) and Criminal Case No. 05-569 for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 (alleged possession of 0.15 gram methylamphetamine hydrochloride). She pleaded not guilty to both informations.
The prosecution’s version was built on a buy-bust operation conducted on March 14, 2005, on Guiho Street, Barangay Cembo, Makati City. The buy-bust team—coordinated with PDEA and involving police and Makati Anti-Drug Abuse Council (MADAC) operatives—used PO1 Percival Mendoza as the poseur-buyer and had marked buy-bust money comprised of two P100 bills marked “C4.” According to PO1 Mendoza and MADAC operative Miguel Castillo, the accused allegedly sold two plastic sachets of suspected shabu; Mendoza tucked the sachet he received into his right front secret pocket as the pre-arranged signal and then effected the arrest. Mendoza testified that inside the Toyota Revo he marked one sachet with his initials “PCM” (the sachet of the sale) and the other “PCM-1” (the sachet recovered from her right hand). The team brought the accused and the seized items to SAID‑SOTF and then to the PNP Crime Laboratory; the substances and the accused’s urine later tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
The accused testified in her own defense, denying the sale and claiming she was a househelper who had been framed. She recounted being accosted by men with a gun, frisked, and taken to MADAC and later to the PNP crime lab; she admitted to a single episode of prior use about a year before her arrest.
On September 15, 2006, the RTC convicted the accused on both counts: in Criminal Case No. 05-568 (sale) it imposed life imprisonment and a P500,000 fine; in Criminal Case No. 05-569 (possession) it imposed an indeterminate term of 12 years and one day to 14 years and a P300,000 fine. The RTC ordered the sachets forwarded to PDEA and credited detention time.
The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). On May 28, 2008 the CA, in an opinion penned by Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan‑Vidal (with Assoc. Justices Vicente Q. Roxas and Jose Catral Mendoza concurring), affirmed the RTC conviction, finding that despite lapses the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were safeguarded and that the accused’s denia...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt where the prosecution failed to show preservation of the chain of custody of the seized drugs under Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and its implementing rules and re...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)