Case Digest (G.R. No. 229047)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Ramoncito Cornel y Asuncion, G.R. No. 229047, April 16, 2018, Supreme Court Second Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff-appellee was the People of the Philippines; the accused-appellant was Ramoncito Cornel y Asuncion.On December 15, 2013, a buy-bust operation was conducted against appellant in Barangay East Rembo, Makati City. The operation was coordinated with the District Anti-Illegal Drugs (DAID) and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) (Control No. PDEA-RO-NCR 12/13-00175). PCI Gaylord Tamayo led the team and designated PO1 Mark Anthony Angulo as poseur-buyer. A marked P1,000 bill was provided to PO1 Angulo and a petty cash voucher documented the disbursement. After a final briefing the team proceeded to the target area at around 7:30 p.m.; an informant introduced appellant to PO1 Angulo as a "tropa." According to prosecution testimony, appellant accepted the marked money, produced and handed over a plastic sachet containing shabu, after which PO1 Angulo signaled arrest by removing his cap. Backup operatives (including SPO1 Randy Obedoza) arrived, arrested appellant, and an initial body search allegedly recovered the marked money. PO1 Angulo testified that appellant was read his Miranda rights.
The inventory and marking of the seized item were not performed at the place of arrest but at the Barangay Hall of East Rembo later that night; photographs and an inventory were made there and the seized item was turned over to investigator PO2 Michelle Gimena and thereafter to forensic personnel for laboratory examination. A criminal information charged appellant with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (illegal sale of 0.03 gram methamphetamine hydrochloride) and trial proceeded.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 64, Makati City, by Decision dated October 29, 2014, found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of Php500,000, and held that the elements of the offense and the chain of custody were satisfied; the RTC rejected appellant’s denial defense. The Court of Appeals (CA), in a Decision dated June 9, 2016 (authored by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante, with concurring Jus...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the prosecution able to prove the identity of the seized drug and the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt given the alleged procedural irregularities?
- Was appellant’s warrantless arrest in the buy-bust operation lawful?
- Did the failure to mark the seized sachet immediately and the conduct of the inventory at the barangay hall (instead of at the place of seizure) break the chain of custody and ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)