Case Digest (G.R. No. 182231)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Eddie Gum-Oyen y Sacpa, G.R. No. 182231, April 16, 2009, the Supreme Court Second Division, Tinga, J., writing for the Court.The criminal prosecution arose from two informations charging Eddie Gum-Oyen y Sacpa with violations of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 (the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). At arraignment the accused pleaded not guilty. During pre-trial the parties stipulated to the existence of Chemistry Reports Nos. D-049-03 and PI-002-03, the request for ultraviolet fluorescent dusting to the PNP Crime Laboratory, the identity of the accused, and the date alleged in the informations; trial on the merits then proceeded.
The prosecution's theory was that on 5 February 2003 a police asset informed the Naguilian Drug Enforcement Unit that appellant would deliver marijuana. PO3 Allan Banana and SPO1 Wilfredo Montero joined a buy-bust operation using P1,120.00 as marked buy-bust money. The police asset acted as poseur-buyer; appellant arrived by tricycle, opened a blue bag, removed a brick wrapped in brown plastic and handed it to the asset. After the asset smelled the brick and handed appellant the money, the buy-bust team identified themselves, arrested appellant, frisked him and searched his bag, recovering three additional bricks of marijuana. The arrested appellant and the contraband were brought to the police station, inventoried and photographed; the items were marked and later submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory, which produced Chemistry Report No. D-049-03 (positive for marijuana) and Chemistry Report No. PI-002-03 (ultraviolet powder found on appellant's hands and on certain bills).
Appellant's defense was that he acted at the instigation of a certain Roger Fundanera (allegedly a police asset), who had instructed and supplied him money and a letter to procure marijuana from San Gabriel. Appellant testified that he merely conveyed a bag entrusted to him and denied possessing the P1,120.00 at arrest, though he admitted his hands tested positive for ultraviolet powder. His live-in partner and his father corroborated parts of his account but Roger was never presented at trial.
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 67, Bauang, La Union, issued a decision dated 5 May 1995 finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession under Section 11 but acquitting him of illegal sale under Section 5, and pronouncing a death sentence (later affected by law). The confiscated items were reported destroyed on October 29, 2004 pursuant to Section 21(4) of R.A. No. 9165. On appeal, the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01105 (decision of 19 November 2007) affirmed the RTC's conviction but modified the penalty to life imprisonment in light of R.A. No. 9346 (prohibiting the death penalty). ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the prosecution establish the corpus delicti and preserve an unbroken chain of custody of the seized marijuana?
- Was the defense of instigation sufficient to create reasonable doubt and negate appellant's crimin...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)