Case Digest (G.R. No. 229515)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Nida Guillermo y De Luna and Desiree Guillermo y Solis, G.R. No. 229515, November 27, 2019, the Supreme Court Third Division, Carandang, J., writing for the Court. The prosecution (Plaintiff-Appellee) charged Nida and Desiree (Accused-Appellants) with violation of Section 5, in relation to Section 26, Article II of R.A. 9165 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs). After arraignment and trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 120, Caloocan City, rendered a decision dated September 5, 2012 finding both accused guilty and imposing life imprisonment and a fine of Php500,000; the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed in a decision dated November 10, 2015 (CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05786). The case was brought to the Supreme Court by automatic review.The prosecution’s theory rested on a buy-bust operation conducted on September 13, 2010. Intelligence Officer 1 (IO1) Grace L. Tactac served as poseur-buyer; IA1 Joshua Arquero led the team. The team prepared “boodle money” consisting allegedly of cut newspapers sandwiched between two genuine 500-peso bills (serial numbers FD236082 and FD236083), placed with genuine 500-peso bills in an orange bag. The pre-arranged signal was the loosening of IO1 Tactac’s ponytail. The confidential informant arranged the meeting, first at Tropical Hut and later at a nearby 7-11. Upon meeting, Nida arrived then returned home; later Nida returned with Desiree carrying a blue paper bag and a child. IO1 Tactac testified Desiree handed her the blue bag, which contained a “White Horse” plastic, a DVD cover of “The Expendables,” and inside the DVD cover eleven sachets of white crystalline substance; IO1 Tactac executed the pre-arranged signal and the arresting officer effected the arrest.
The team brought the seized items to the PDEA office where IO1 Tactac marked and inventoried the items (markings: EXH A, EXH A-1, EXH A-2, EXH B1–B11), with the inventory signed by IO1 Tactac, IO2 Advincula, Barangay Kagawad Jonathan Burce, and a media representative; photographs were taken. Forensic Chemist Shaila Seville examined the eleven sachets and reported they tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride (Chemistry Report No. PDEA-DD010-368). Drug tests on both accused were negative. The defense presented witnesses who described forcible abduction and claimed the accused were taken to the PDEA office and shown the sachets; they denied any sale and asserted improprieties in the operation and inventory procedures.
At trial the RTC found the sale occurred (delivery by Desiree; seller identified as Nida) and relied on the presumption of regularity ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs (i.e., identity of buyer/seller/object/consideration and delivery/payment).
- Whether the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved by compliance with the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of R.A. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations.
- Whether the presumption of regularity in the performance of police duties can supply proof where procedural lapses in mar...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)