Case Digest (G.R. No. 185378)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Jennefer Carin y Donoga @ Mae-Ann, G.R. No. 185378, September 27, 2010, Supreme Court Third Division, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court. The accused-appellant is Jennefer Carin y Donoga; the prosecution is the People of the Philippines. The case concerns an alleged violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).On November 27, 2003, appellant was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City with selling 0.02 gram of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) for P100. The prosecution’s factual narrative rested on an informant-led buy-bust operation coordinated by the Makati City Anti-Drug Abuse Council (MADAC), the Anti-Illegal Drug Special Operation Task Force (AIDSOTF) and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). The buy-bust team allegedly comprised PO3 Jay Lagasca (team leader), MADAC operative Ruel Mergal (poseur-buyer) and MADAC operative Edgardo Lumawag (back-up). A marked P100 bill bearing the initials “AAM” was used; the informant introduced appellant to Mergal, appellant allegedly went inside her house briefly, returned with a plastic sachet, accepted the marked bill, and executed a pre-arranged signal. Arresting officers recovered the marked bill from appellant’s left hand; the sachet was marked “JCD,” submitted to the crime laboratory and tested positive for shabu, and appellant’s urine tested positive.
Appellant denied the charge and claimed she was framed: she said two men in plain clothes accosted her while washing clothes, threatened her with a gun, handcuffed and forcibly removed her into a vehicle, and that she was later shown a sachet that someone said had been bought from her. She also stated that at the DEU an investigator produced a P100 bill and wrote on it. At trial the prosecution presented documentary evidence and testimony of PO3 Lagasca, Mergal and Lumawag; defense witnesses did not refute the laboratory results but asserted the frame-up narrative.
By Decision dated May 12, 2006, Branch 64, RTC Makati convicted appellant of violating Section 5, Article II, RA 9165, sentenced her to life imprisonment and imposed a fine of P500,000. The trial court relied on the presumption of regularity in official acts and discredited the frame-up defense...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the prosecution comply with Section 21(1), Article II of RA 9165 and maintain the required chain of custody for the seized specimen?
- Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt the elements of illegal sale of a dangerous drug (identity of parties, object and consideration, a...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)