G.R. No. 182231 - People vs. Gum-oyen y Sacpa

Two separate informations were filed against appellant Eddie Gum-Oyen y Sacpa for violations of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).
At arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty to both charges.
During the pretrial conference, the prosecution and defense stipulated to the existence of key pieces of evidence—Chemistry Report Nos. D-049-03 and P1-002-03—as well as the request for an ultraviolet fluorescent dusting prepared by the PNP Crime Laboratory, the identity of the accused, and the incident date, paving the way to trial on the merits.

On February 5, 2003, members of the Drug Enforcement Unit in Naguilian, La Union, received a tip from a police asset that appellant was set to deliver marijuana in Barangay Cabaritan.
The police, led by PO3 Allan BaAana and SPO1 Wilfredo Montero, organized a buy-bust operation with the asset acting as a poseur-buyer using P1,120.00 as buy-bust money.
The team positioned itself strategically at a waiting shed with additional operatives on standby in the adjacent houses.

Around 11:30 a.m., appellant arrived at the scene on a tricycle carrying a blue bag.
He met and conversed with the police asset, then proceeded to partially open his bag and produce a square-shaped object wrapped in brown plastic, which he handed over.
While counting the money given by the police asset, appellant was arrested by the buy-bust team, which then frisked him for dangerous weapons and searched his bag, uncovering three additional bricks of marijuana.

At the police station, the seized buy-bust money and four bricks of marijuana were recovered and marked by police officers, including SPO1 Valentin Abenoja, who recorded and documented the items in the police blotter.
The contraband was presented before the Municipal Mayor and photographed with several police officers, reinforcing proper inventory and custody controls.
The seized marijuana was then delivered to the PNP Crime Laboratory where laboratory tests were conducted, leading to confirmations through Chemistry Report Nos. D-049-03 and P1-002-03.

The appellant testified that he was instigated by Roger Fundanera—a former co-worker and alleged police asset—to purchase marijuana on his behalf.
He presented an alternative narrative involving transactions on January 12, 2003, and February 4, 2003, wherein he received money and instructions to procure marijuana from an intermediary named Ponsing.
Testimonies from Marilou Panit (his live-in partner) and Balloguing Gum-Oyen (his father) were introduced to support the claim that appellant merely acted as an intermediary at the instigation of another party.

The RTC of Bauang, La Union, Branch 67 rendered a decision finding appellant guilty of illegal possession under Section 11 of RA 9165, imposing a death sentence (later modified).
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but replaced the death penalty with life imprisonment in compliance with RA No. 9346, which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty.
The appellate court underscored that the corpus delicti was established beyond reasonable doubt, and the chain of custody and proper evidentiary procedures were observed, thereby discrediting appellant’s defense of instigation.

Whether the prosecution was able to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, all the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs as charged under Section 11 of RA 9165.
Whether the chain-of-custody of the seized marijuana was properly maintained from the moment of seizure to its identification in the laboratory reports.
Whether the appellant’s defense of instigation, alleging that he was merely an instrument at the behest of a police asset, sufficiently negates his criminal liability.
Whether the factual findings of the trial court, particularly relating to the identity of the corpus delicti and the credibility of the police witnesses, were manifestly erroneous or should be upheld.