Case Digest (G.R. No. 141400)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Evangeline Ganenas y Urbano, G.R. No. 141400, September 06, 2001, Supreme Court Third Division, Panganiban, J., writing for the Court.The People charged appellant Evangeline Ganenas y Urbano in an Information dated March 15, 1999 with selling, delivering and giving away two bricks of dried marijuana fruiting tops weighing a total of 1,870.70 grams, in violation of Section 4, Article II of R.A. No. 6425, as amended. Appellant pleaded not guilty at arraignment on June 23, 1999. Trial followed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 103, Quezon City (Criminal Case No. 99-81866).
The prosecution’s evidence recounts that a District Police Intelligence Unit (DPIU) confidential informant arranged a buy-bust meeting at about 6:00 p.m. on March 12, 1999 under the Camachile Road overpass in Quezon City. PO3 Orlando Herrera acted as poseur-buyer, assisted by back-up officers (SPO4 Benjamin Elenzano, Jr., SPO2 Regie Antolin, SPO1 Ricardo Duque, SPO1 Jhonalden Tabios, PO2 Ramon Tolentino, and PO2 Resty Tudillo). Marked money (two genuine P500 bills and six boodle bills) was prepared. The informant introduced Herrera to appellant; Herrera handed over the money, appellant handed him two bricks of suspected marijuana wrapped in newspaper, and Herrera identified himself and effected the arrest. The marked money was recovered from appellant. Appellant led officers (excluding Herrera and the informant) to her residence in Caloocan where officers allegedly observed nine more bricks; all eleven bricks later tested positive for marijuana at the PNP Crime Laboratory.
The trial court found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt and on December 1, 1999 sentenced her to reclusion perpetua and a P1,000,000 fine. Appellant appealed to t...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court err in convicting appellant by overlooking substantial facts and misappreciating the evidence regarding the buy-bust operation and identity of the seller?
- Was the trial court wrong in giving weight to the presumption that law enforcers regularly performed their official duties and thus in rejecting appellant’...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)