Case Digest (G.R. No. 232645)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Antonio Balderrama y De Leon, G.R. No. 232645, February 18, 2019, Supreme Court First Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court.The prosecution (the People) charged Antonio Balderrama y De Leon (accused‑appellant) in two Informations dated August 13, 2010: Criminal Case No. 17248‑D‑TG for unlawful sale of 0.060 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) in violation of Section 5, Article II of RA No. 9165, and Criminal Case No. 17249‑D‑TG for unlawful possession of the same weight of shabu in violation of Section 11, Article II of the same law. At arraignment the accused pleaded not guilty and the cases proceeded to trial in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Taguig City, Branch 267.
The prosecution presented testimony of PO3 Antonio Reyes and PO3 Jowel Briones. They recounted a buy‑bust operation in which PO3 Reyes acted as poseur buyer, marked bills (amounting to P1,500) were prepared by PCI Porfirio Calagan, and at about 10:30 p.m. on August 13 the team proceeded to the accused’s house. According to the buy‑bust narrative, the informant introduced PO3 Reyes as a buyer, PO3 Reyes purchased a P500 sachet from the accused, signaled arrest by scratching his head, and the team arrested the accused and allegedly found another sachet and the marked bill on his person. The seized sachets were marked ADR‑1‑130810 and ADR‑2‑130810, photographed and later tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Three barangay officials were invited to witness the taking of inventory.
Accused‑appellant testified denying the sale: he said three men in civilian clothes entered his house without a warrant, searched it, brought him to a vehicle and then to the police station, and that he was later photographed with two sachets and a P500 bill. He maintained the buy‑bust story was untrue.
The RTC, in a December 22, 2015 Judgment, found the accused guilty of the sale charge (Criminal Case No. 17248‑D‑TG) and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a P500,000 fine, but acquitted him of the possession charge (Criminal Case No. 17249‑D‑TG) for reasonable doubt. The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA‑G.R. CR HC No. 08051; the CA, by Decision dated April 21, 2017 (pened by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro‑Javier, concurred in by Justices Ramon A. Cruz and Pedro B. Corales), affirmed the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the prosecution comply with the custody and inventory requirements of Section 21 of RA No. 9165 and Section 21 of its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), and if not, did the noncompliance justify acquittal?
- Did the prosecution prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the sale offense charged in C...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)