Case Digest (G.R. No. 189980)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Alberto Bacus Alcuizar, G.R. No. 189980, April 06, 2011, First Division of the Supreme Court, Perez, J., writing for the Court.The People of the Philippines (plaintiff-appellee) charged Alberto Bacus Alcuizar (defendant-appellant) in several informations alleging violations of Republic Act No. 9165 (the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act). Alcuizar was tried in two sets of proceedings: Criminal Cases Nos. CBU-66343 and CBU-66344 before RTC Branch 15 (alleging illegal sale and maintaining a drug den), and Criminal Cases Nos. CBU-66345 and CBU-66346 before RTC Branch 17 (alleging illegal possession of shabu and possession of drug paraphernalia). The Information in the appealed case (CBU-66345) charged possession of multiple heat-sealed plastic packets of white crystalline substance that tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
During pre-trial the defense admitted the genuineness of the Forensic Chemistry Report and the chemist’s testimony was dispensed with. The prosecution presented a lone witness, SPO1 Meliton Agadier, who testified that a buy-bust operation was conducted on 15 June 2003 in Sitio Awayan; the poseur-buyer purportedly purchased one “deck” of shabu from appellant, who fled to his parents’ house and was arrested. The police implemented a search warrant at appellant’s house and allegedly recovered various heat-sealed plastic packs of white crystalline substance, tin foil with residue, lighters and an improvised lamp; a receipt of the seized items was prepared and signed by some barangay officials and photographers, and the items were submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory which issued a positive Forensic Chemistry Report.
RTC Branch 15 (Judge Fortunato M. De Gracia, Jr.) acquitted appellant in Criminal Cases Nos. CBU-66343 and CBU-66344 (illegal sale and maintaining a drug den). RTC Branch 17 (Judge Silvestre A. Maamo, Jr.) rendered a consolidated judgment on 20 December 2006: acquitting appellant in CBU-66346 (illegal possession of drug paraphernalia) but convicting him in CBU-66345 for violation of Section 11, Republic Act No. 9165 (illegal possession of dangerous drugs), sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine. The trial court relied on the presumption that prohibited drugs found in a house occupied by a person give rise to possession and found appellant’s denial and planting claims unconvincing.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC Branch 17 conviction. Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. On appeal he argued (inter alia) that (1) the prosecution f...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does appellant’s conviction violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy?
- Was the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti (the seized shabu) preserved by an unbroken chain of custody such that the prosecution proved the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt?
- Should alleged improper motive on the part of the police affect the conviction?
- Did the prosecution prove appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for illegal possession un...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)