Case Digest (G.R. No. 197818)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Allan Diaz y Roxas, G.R. No. 197818, February 25, 2015, Supreme Court Second Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court.The People of the Philippines (plaintiff-appellee) prosecuted Allan Diaz y Roxas (accused-appellant) for illegal sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. An Information dated August 7, 2008 charged that on or about August 2, 2008 in Manila the accused sold one heat-sealed sachet (marked ARD-1) containing 0.018 gram of shabu.
At arraignment on August 22, 2008, appellant pleaded not guilty and moved for bail, which the trial court denied on November 17, 2008. The prosecution’s case rested on a buy-bust operation initiated after a confidential informant reported appellant’s alleged drug activities on August 1, 2008. A buy-bust team led by PO2 Arthuro Coronel (poseur-buyer) conducted the operation; Coronel was given three premarked P100 bills (marked AC1–AC3). A Pre-Operation Report and Coordination Sheet were prepared and sent to the PDEA.
According to the prosecution, at about 4:00 a.m. on August 2, 2008 the informant and Coronel approached appellant, Coronel handed over the marked money, appellant gave a small plastic sachet, Coronel made the pre-arranged signal and appellant was arrested. At the police station the sachet was marked ARD-1 (with appellant’s initials), an affidavit of arrest was prepared, and the specimen (0.018 g) was submitted to the forensic chemist; Chemistry Report No. D-725-08 confirmed methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
Appellant claimed he was suddenly arrested while walking home between 10:00 and 11:00 p.m. on August 1, 2008, brought to a police station and to an inquest prosecutor, and only there learned of the drug charge. He denied the buy-bust facts.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 2, Manila, in Criminal Case No. 08-263032 rendered a decision dated November 5, 2009 convicting appellant of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and sentencing him to life imprisonment and a P500,000 fine. Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04206. By its Decision dated February 11, 2011, the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Can appellant raise for the first time on appeal alleged noncompliance with Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (marking, inventory and photographing) when he failed to object at trial?
- Did the prosecution establish appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt by proving the sale and an unbroken chain of custody...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)