Case Digest (G.R. No. 193385)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Dats Gandawali y Gapas and Nol Pagalad y Anas, G.R. No. 193385, December 01, 2014, the Supreme Court Second Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court. The appeal is a final review of the Court of Appeals’ June 21, 2010 decision (CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03736), which affirmed the Regional Trial Court, Branch 82, Quezon City’s November 18, 2008 conviction (Criminal Case No. Q-03-118597).On July 3, 2003 an Information was filed charging appellants with violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for allegedly selling 0.24 gram of a white crystalline substance containing methylamphetamine hydrochloride. At arraignment on September 3, 2003 both pleaded not guilty; pretrial and trial followed in the RTC.
The prosecution’s evidence described a June 30, 2003 buy-bust operation at the corner of Sto. Niño St. and Roosevelt Ave., San Francisco Del Monte, Quezon City, based on a confidential informant’s tip. The buy-bust team, led by P/Insp. Joseph de Vera, employed PO2 Sofjan Soriano as the poseur-buyer and gave him a P500 bill. According to testimony, Soriano and the informant approached appellants; Soriano gave the P500 to Gandawali, who passed it to Pagalad; Pagalad produced a small heat-sealed plastic sachet which Gandawali handed to Soriano. Soriano then signaled arrest; officers recovered the marked sachet and the buy-bust money. The sachet was marked ES-06-30-03, brought to the Central Police District Crime Laboratory, and, per Chemistry Report No. D-555-03, tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
Appellants denied the charge and countered that they had been wrongfully arrested earlier (at about 6:35 a.m. in Litex, Fairview), brought to Police Station 2, and extorted by PO1 Sarangaya for P15,000 in exchange for release; they said they did not file complaints out of fear and unfamiliarity with procedures.
The RTC convicted appellants on November 18, 2008, sentencing them to life imprisonment and a P500,000 fine each. The Court of Appeals affirmed in toto on June 21, ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs charged under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165?
- Did the prosecution preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug despite noncompliance with Section 21(1), Article II of RA 9165?
- Did appellants establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the police framed them or extorted them?
- Was conspiracy between appellants established making them liable as co‑principals?...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)