Case Digest (G.R. No. 233653)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Ricardo Guanzon y Ceneta, G.R. No. 233653, September 05, 2018, Supreme Court First Division, Tijam, J., writing for the Court.The accused-appellant, Ricardo Guanzon y Ceneta, was charged in two Informations for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002)—one count of illegal sale (Criminal Case No. 03-26225) and one count of illegal possession (Criminal Case No. 03-26226)—stemming from events alleged to have occurred on July 28, 2003 in Antipolo City. The prosecution’s theory was that a PNP-PDEA buy-bust team used PO2 Vandever D. Hernandez as poseur-buyer who bought a sachet of white crystalline substance from Guanzon; a second sachet was allegedly recovered from Guanzon upon frisking. Laboratory tests by the PNP Crime Laboratory yielded positive results for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu).
Guanzon pleaded not guilty. At trial the prosecution presented, among others, SPO2 Gerry S. Abalos (team leader), PO2 Vandever Hernandez (poseur-buyer), PO3 Cesar F. Paulos and PO3 Sherwin G. Bulan (backups), and Forensic Chemist PSI Angel C. Timario. The defense disputed the buy-bust narrative, claiming armed men falsely arrested Guanzon, that officers asked their asset to buy drugs, and that the police concocted the sale and possession charges. The records show the prosecution did not submit or formally offer an inventory or photographs of the seized items in court and that no media, NPS or elected official’s presence during inventory/photograph was established.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Antipolo City, Branch 73, found Guanzon guilty in a Decision promulgated February 18, 2016, imposing life imprisonment and fines for illegal sale and a prison term and fine for illegal possession; it ordered confiscation and disposition of the contraband. Guanzon appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in its May 31, 2017 Decision in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08152, affirmed the RTC in toto, finding the discrepancies in police testimony to be minor and upholding an unbroken chain of custody from seizure to laboratory and court presentation.
Guanzon elevated the case to the Supreme Court by appeal (the Court observed that the appeal implicates review under Rule 122, Sec. 3(e), in relation to Rule 124, Sec. 13(c), allowing review of both questions of law and fact)...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the RTC and the Court of Appeals err in finding Guanzon guilty beyond reasonable doubt despite admitted non-compliance with the mandatory custodial and disposition procedures under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 (as amended) and its IRR, i.e., was the chain of custody and the identity/integrity of the seized drugs proven...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)