Title
People vs. Conlu y Benetua
Case
G.R. No. 225213
Decision Date
Oct 3, 2018
Appellant acquitted due to prosecution's failure to prove illegal drug sale beyond reasonable doubt and unbroken chain of custody of seized drugs.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 225213)

Facts:

People of the Philippines v. Ceasar Conlu y Benetua, G.R. No. 225213, October 03, 2018, Supreme Court Second Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court. Appellant Ceasar Conlu y Benetua was charged in two informations for violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) in Criminal Case Nos. 8615-69 and 8616-69. He was acquitted in Criminal Case No. 8615-69 (possession) but, after trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 69, Silay City, convicted him in Criminal Case No. 8616-69 for violation of Section 5 (sale) and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine; the RTC found the buy-bust operation to have been well planned, coordinated with PDEA, and sufficiently documented.

The prosecution’s version, supported by nine witnesses (including P/Inspector Hernand Donado, PO2 Ian Libo-on, and PO2 Reynaldo Bernil), described a surveillance/test-buy that led to a buy-bust on April 18, 2012 in Villa Hergon, Barangay Rizal, Silay City. Marked money (P250) was given to a police asset (poseur-buyer) who allegedly approached appellant; the asset signaled consummation by a pre-arranged gesture and operatives who had been some distance away (initially ~50 meters, later ~7–10 meters) converged and arrested appellant. A small heat-sealed sachet (later testing positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride) was claimed to have been delivered by appellant to the poseur-buyer and thereafter handled by members of the buy-bust team; additional sachets were allegedly recovered only later at the police station.

The defense presented four witnesses, including appellant and his father, who described a forcible arrest, a body search conducted by barangay officials that allegedly yielded nothing at the scene (applauded by onlookers), and that later at the police station a search produced sachets. The poseur-buyer who allegedly consummated the sale was not presented at trial.

On October 14, 2013, the RTC convicted for sale (Crim. Case No. 8616-69) but acquitted for possession (Crim. Case No. 8615-69). The Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01755, affirmed the RTC on September 30, 2015, finding the ...(Subscriber-Only)

Issues:

  • Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that an illegal sale under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 occurred between appellant and the poseur-buyer?
  • Was the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drug established such that the corpus delicti was properl...(Subscriber-Only)

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.