Case Digest (G.R. No. 207229)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Siegfred Cabellon y Cabanero, G.R. No. 207229, September 20, 2017, the Supreme Court Third Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court. The accused-appellant is Siegfred Cabellon y Cabanero; the People of the Philippines prosecuted the criminal case for violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 (sale of dangerous drugs).On April 28, 2006 an Information charged Cabellon with selling one heat-sealed plastic packet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride (allegedly weighing 0.03 g) to a poseur-buyer on April 13, 2006 in Bulacao, City of Talisay, Cebu. Cabellon pleaded not guilty and trial ensued. The prosecution presented testimony from members of the buy-bust team—PO2 Junar Rey Barangan, PO3 Rey Bucao, and PO3 Reynato Abellar—and evidence that marked bills were recovered from Cabellon and that the poseur-buyer handed a sachet to PO3 Bucao. The sachet bore the marking “SCC 04/13/06.” Forensic chemist P/S Insp. Mutchit G. Salinas issued Chemistry Report No. D-698-2006 confirming the substance as methamphetamine hydrochloride; the Request for Laboratory Examination was received by PO1 Domael.
At trial Cabellon denied the sale and offered an alibi/alternative narrative of his arrest; he also claimed he was not informed of his rights. The poseur-buyer did not testify. At the Regional Trial Court (Branch 58, Cebu City), presided by Judge Gabriel T. Ingles, the RTC found on October 27, 2008 that the prosecution proved the elements of illegal sale and that the chain of custody of the seized sachet had been accounted for, and convicted Cabellon to life imprisonment and a fine; Exhibit B (the sachet) was forfeited to the State.
Cabellon appealed to the Court of Appeals. In an August 30, 2012 decision (CA‑G.R. No. CEB‑CR HC No. 01081), the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC, finding the elements of illegal sale proven, downplaying the necessity of presenting the poseur-buyer given the apprehending officers’ testimony, and applying Section 21 of RA 9165 less stringently under the circumstances while noting that alleged infirmities were not raised at trial.
The case was brought to the Supreme Court for review of the Court of Appeals decision. The Court notified parties for supplemental briefs but both parties waived filing. Cabellon argued (inter alia) that the poseur-buyer’s absence and the police officers’ distance undermined proof of sale, that Section 21’s inventory/photographing/marking requirements were not complied with, and that the chain of custody had ga...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was accused-appellant Siegfred Cabellon y Cabanero’s guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt despite the alleged non-observance of the requirements under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 (i.e., did the prosecution adequately establish the corpus delicti and an unbroken...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)