G.R. No. 149036 - Matibag vs. Benipayo

Case Digest (G.R. No. 149036)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Procedural and Factual Background

Two Informations were filed on August 7, 2017, against Jessie Bancud y Cauilan for violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).
The allegations covered:

Illegal sale of dangerous drugs, alleging that on August 6, 2017, in Tuguegarao City, the accused sold two heat‐sealed transparent plastic sachets containing 0.1327 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride (“shabu”) to a police officer acting as a poseur–buyer in a prearranged buy–bust operation.
Illegal possession of dangerous drugs, alleging that during the subsequent search following his arrest, another heat–sealed plastic sachet containing 1.1015 grams of shabu was found in his possession.

The Buy–Bust Operation and Arrest

The operation was initiated at approximately 8:15 AM when PSI Quintin Baquiran received information from a Confidential Informant that the accused was looking for buyers.
The operation was meticulously planned, involving:

Organization of a buy–bust team composed of several police officers (e.g., PO3 Tumaneng as the poseur–buyer, with PO3 Angoluan and PO2 Cusipag as arresting officers).
Prearranged signals, such as the poseur–buyer calling a designated police officer to indicate that the transaction was complete.

Transaction and Evidence Handling

During the operation at the accused’s residence at Bancud Street, Atulayan Norte:

The accused handed over the two plastic sachets in exchange for a marked P1,000.00 peso–bill.
Soon after the transaction, the buy–bust team executed the arrest; the accused was cornered, and while attempting to escape into the bathroom, was apprehended and searched.

The search yielded:

The buy–bust money used in the transaction.
An additional sachet of shabu discovered during a search incident to arrest.

Chain of Custody Procedures:

The sachets were immediately marked (with inscriptions such as “VVT-1 8-16-17” and “JTC 8-16-17”) by the arresting officers.
A physical inventory and photographic documentation were conducted in the presence of the accused and independent witnesses (DOJ representative and barangay captain).
The evidence was delivered to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) by SPO2 Carag on August 31, 2017, after being processed at the crime laboratory.

Versions of the Prosecution and Defense

Prosecution’s Version:

Testimonies of police officers (e.g., PO3 Tumaneng and PO2 Cusipag) confirmed the occurrence of the buy–bust operation and the transaction details.
Laboratory examinations by PI Odasco verified that the sachets contained methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The continuous and properly recorded chain of custody ensured the integrity of the seized evidence.

Defense’s Version:

The accused claimed he was taken by surprise while in his comfort room after an errand, and contended that a man armed with a gun burst into his house, falsely implicating him in possession of shabu.
He alleged that he was framed, with his live–in partner and his brother later testifying in support of his version, although their credibility was questioned due to potential bias.
The defense argued that the alleged irregularity in the buy–bust operation and the absence of some expected witness testimonies (police investigator and evidence custodian) should have rendered the arrest and evidence inadmissible.

Court Proceedings and Decisions

The RTC convicted the accused on February 6, 2018, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt for both illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, and imposing:

Life imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000.00 for illegal sale.
An indeterminate imprisonment (minimum 12 years and 1 day up to 15 years) plus a fine of ₱300,000.00 for illegal possession.

The Court of Appeals (CA), in its Decision dated May 31, 2019, affirmed the RTC’s judgment, underscoring:

The continuous and unbroken chain of custody.
The sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence despite the absence of the police investigator and evidence custodian as live witnesses.
The inherent weakness of the accused’s defense of denial and frame–up, given the overwhelming affirmative testimonies by the police officers involved.

Issues:

Evidentiary Integrity and Chain of Custody

Was the chain of custody maintained in full compliance with the procedures prescribed under R.A. 9165 and its amendments, ensuring the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs?
Did the immediate inventory, marking, and photographic documentation suffice to eliminate any doubts about the evidence’s identity?

Sufficiency and Credibility of the Prosecution’s Evidence

Whether the testimonies of the buy–bust team (particularly the poseur–buyer and the arresting officers) were credible and sufficient to establish the accused’s involvement in the sale of dangerous drugs.
Whether the absence of additional witnesses (e.g., the police investigator and evidence custodian) materially affected the prosecution’s case.

Reliability of the Accused’s Defense

Whether the accused’s claim of being surprised, the allegation of a frame-up, and the subsequent defense testimonies by his relatives were credible in light of the overwhelming evidence.
Whether the defense sufficiently rebutted the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by law enforcement officers.

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

(Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

Case Digest (G.R. No. 149036) Core Legal Reasoning Model Expanded

Facts:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 149036) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Ratio:

Doctrine:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 149036)
Core Legal Reasoning Model

Expanded

Case Digest (G.R. No. 149036)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model