Case Digest (G.R. No. 229053)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Jordan Casaclang Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 229053, July 17, 2019, Supreme Court Third Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court.The accused-appellant Jordan Casaclang Dela Cruz was charged by Informations filed on July 23, 2012 with unlawful possession (Criminal Case No. L-9497) and unlawful sale (Criminal Case No. L-9498) of marijuana in violation of Republic Act No. 9165 (the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). The informations alleged that on July 10, 2012 Dela Cruz sold two plastic sachets of dried marijuana to an undercover police poseur-buyer and that, upon arrest, officers recovered two additional sachets from his person.
At trial the prosecution presented five witnesses, including the poseur-buyer PO1 Denver Y. Santillan and the forensic examiner Senior Inspector Myrna C. Malojo-Todeno, who prepared Chemistry Report No. D-073-12 confirming the seized specimens as marijuana and giving their weights. The poseur-buyer testified to marking three P50 bills, effecting the buy-bust, receiving the sachets, signaling the consummation of the sale, and arresting Dela Cruz; he further testified that he marked the sachets with identifiers (e.g., "DYS4") and turned them over for laboratory examination. Dela Cruz testified in denial, claiming abduction by unidentified men and denying knowledge of the drugs.
The Regional Trial Court (Branch 38, Lingayen, Pangasinan) found Dela Cruz guilty in its July 20, 2015 Decision, convicting him for illegal possession and illegal sale and imposing indeterminate and life sentences with fines; it held the chain of custody intact and credited the poseur-buyer’s identification over Dela Cruz’s denial. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (Fourteenth Division) issued its October 5, 2016 Decision affirming the conviction but modifying the penalty in L-9497 and deleting subsidiary imprisonment; it accepted that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized marijuana were properly preserved despite the absence of certain third-party witnesses during inventory.
Dela Cruz filed an appeal to the Supreme Court (the Court gave due course to his appeal on November 9, 2016). The parties were required to file supplemental briefs; both later manifested they would no longer file them. The s...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the prosecution allege and prove justifiable grounds for noncompliance with Section 21(1) of RA 9165 and show earnest efforts to secure the attendance of the third‑party witnesses required during the physical inventory and photographing?
- If not, does the failure to comply with Section 21(1) (and the attendant chain of custody requirements) require acquittal because it undermines the integrity of the corpus delicti and n...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)