Case Digest (G.R. No. 198701)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 198701)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Jayson Curillan Hambora, G.R. No. 198701, December 10, 2012, Supreme Court First Division, Reyes, J., writing for the Court.The People of the Philippines (plaintiff-appellee) charged Jayson C. Hambora (accused-appellant) by Information with violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 for the illegal sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) on February 13, 2004 at about 12:05 noon at Montilla Street, Butuan City. The Information alleged that Hambora sold one sachet of shabu weighing 0.0743 gram to a poseur-buyer for P400.00.
Prosecution testimony described a CIDG buy-bust operation after surveillance of the area; PO2 Andrew Lasco acted as poseur-buyer and used four marked P100 bills. According to the police, Hambora approached Lasco, asked if he wanted to buy shabu, accepted the marked money and handed over a sachet marked "JAR." Hambora was arrested, physically searched (with the marked money recovered), brought to the CIDG office, and the seized sachet was submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory; Laboratory Report No. D-026-04 confirmed the specimen was shabu.
Hambora denied the sale. He testified he was at home before going out on an errand to collect a debt; he said he was arrested while returning, denied selling drugs, and claimed nothing was found on him during a search. He also said he requested barangay officials to be present during the search but was denied.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Butuan City, Branch 4, after trial convicted Hambora on October 1, 2009 for illegal sale under R.A. 9165, sentencing him to life imprisonment and P500,000 fine, and ordering confiscation of the seized sachet. The Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00756-MIN, affirmed the RTC decision in a July 29, 2011 Decision, rejecting Hambora’s framing allegation, finding the minor testimonial variances immaterial, and holding that noncompliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165 did not render the seized item inadmissible so long as the integrity of the corpus delicti was preserved. Hambora appealed to the Supreme Court; the Court, First Division, issued the decision here under review.
Issues:
- Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt the elements of illegal sale of shabu (identity of buyer and seller, the object and consideration, delivery and payment, and presentation of the corpus delicti)?
- Does the asserted noncompliance with Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165 (chain of custody/inventory requirements) render the seized shabu inadmissible or otherwise vitiate the conviction?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)