Case Digest (G.R. No. 183088)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Donato Capco y Sabadlad, G.R. No. 183088, September 17, 2009, Supreme Court Third Division, Velasco Jr., J., writing for the Court.The accused-appellant, Donato Capco, was charged in two informations filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 64, Makati City: Criminal Case No. 03-3233 alleging violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 (illegal sale of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, “shabu”), and Criminal Case No. 03-3561 alleging violation of Section 15, Article II of RA 9165 (use of dangerous drugs). At arraignment on September 10, 2003 Capco pleaded not guilty to the sale charge but pleaded guilty to the use charge and was sentenced to six months rehabilitation, the execution of which was deferred pending the outcome of the sale case.
The prosecution’s proof at trial centered on a buy-bust operation conducted on the evening of August 21, 2003 in the vicinity of Dapitan Street, Barangay Guadalupe Nuevo, Makati City. Police operatives of the Makati AID-SOTF, acting on an informant’s tip, employed PO2 Vicente Barrameda as poseur-buyer; Barrameda testified that he purchased a plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance for P100 in marked money, gave the pre-arranged signal, and the team arrested Capco. The sachet was marked “DSC” by PO2 Barrameda, forwarded to the PNP Crime Laboratory, and forensic chemist Grace M. Eustaquio reported the specimen positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride; urine taken from Capco was likewise reported positive.
Capco testified in denial, claiming he was forcibly taken by unidentified persons on August 23, 2003 and later detained by the Drug Enforcement Unit, who purportedly demanded money for his release. His witness Ace Bernal corroborated aspects of Capco’s account. The RTC, however, found the prosecution’s witnesses credible and convicted Capco on February 1, 2006 for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a P500,000 fine and implementing the previously deferred six-month rehabilitation for the Section 15 conviction; the RTC directed transmission of the seized sachet to PDEA for disposition. The RTC decision was penned by Judge Delia H. Panganiban.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02213, by decision dated December 28, 2007 (penne d by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr., with concurrence), affirmed the RTC, holding the informant was not an indispensable witness and that the prosecution adequately established an unbroken chain of custody despite non-presentation of some police and laboratory personnel. Capco filed a notice of appeal and the CA gave it due course.
This Court required supplemental briefs on August 6, 2008; the parties elected to submit the case on the records. Capco urged reversal on three grounds: (1) the prosecution...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the non-presentation of the confidential informant fatal to the prosecution’s case?
- Does non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 render the seized evidence inadmissible?
- Did the prosecution sufficiently prove the identity of the seized substance as a prohibited drug and the continuity...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)