Case Digest (G.R. No. 146277)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Albert Casimiro y Serillo, G.R. No. 146277, June 20, 2002, Supreme Court Second Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court.
The prosecution charged Albert Casimiro with violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended (sale or delivery of marijuana), alleging that on or about 17 August 1999 in Baguio City he sold or delivered about nine hundred fifty (950) grams of dried marijuana leaves in brick form to a poseur-buyer. Upon arraignment Casimiro pleaded not guilty and trial proceeded before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 6, Baguio City.
Prosecution witnesses were PO2 Dorotheo (Doroteo) Supa (the poseur-buyer), PO3 Juan Piggangay, Jr., and forensic chemist Alma Margarita Villasenor. Their testimony described a buy-bust set up after an informer named Rose gave police Casimiro’s phone number; a telephone arrangement followed, and on 18 August 1999 Supa met Casimiro at Anthonys Wine and Grocery where Casimiro allegedly handed Supa a paper bag containing a brick later identified as marijuana. Supa signaled the back-up team and Casimiro was arrested. At the narcotics office the policemen marked the brick with their initials, prepared reports, and a Receipt of Property Seized (Exh. L) that Casimiro signed. The PNP Crime Laboratory later tested the specimen and Chemist Villasenor reported a weight of 904.6 grams and a positive identification as marijuana.
Casimiro testified in his own defense, claiming an alibi and denying ownership of the bag; he said Rose had been carrying the bag earlier and that police roughed him up, threatened him and induced him to sign forms without explanation or counsel. He also denied being allowed to read or understand the documents he signed.
On October 17, 2000 the RTC convicted Casimiro of violating RA 6425 as amended (referencing Sections 13 and 17 of RA 7659), sentenced him to re...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the Receipt of Property Seized (Exh. L), signed by accused without counsel, admissible as evidence against him?
- Did the prosecution sufficiently establish the identity and chain of custody of the seized marijuana (the corpus delicti)?
- Taken together, was the evidence sufficient to convict ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)