Case Digest (G.R. No. 227398)
Facts:
This is People of the Philippines v. Anastacio Hementiza y Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 227398, March 22, 2017, Supreme Court Second Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court. The prosecution (the People) charged Anastacio Hementiza y Dela Cruz (accused-appellant) in two separate Informations dated May 25, 2003: Criminal Case No. 03-25726 for illegal possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) in violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, and Criminal Case No. 03-25727 for illegal sale of shabu in violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.After arraignment on July 22, 2003, the prosecution presented Forensic Chemist P/Insp. Sharon Lontoc Fabros, PO2 Rache E. Palconit (poseur-buyer), and Barangay Captain Dr. Rina Gabuna Junio as witnesses. Their version was that on May 25, 2003 a buy-bust operation in Sitio Lower Sto. Nino, Barangay Sta. Cruz, Antipolo City, resulted in Palconit purchasing one heat-sealed sachet of shabu from the accused with marked money; upon signal, the team arrested the accused and recovered two additional sachets and the marked money from his pocket. The seized sachets were brought to the PDEA office, a request for laboratory examination was made, and Fabros reported that the substances tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The accused denied the buy-bust facts, claiming instead that three armed men arrested and handcuffed him while he was playing billiards, detained and interrogated him, and coerced admissions and identifications.
On January 29, 2014, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 73, Antipolo City, convicted the accused of both offenses: life imprisonment and a P500,000 fine for illegal sale (Sec. 5), and twelve years and one day to twenty years and a P300,000 fine for illegal possession (Sec. 11). The RTC found the chain of custody and integrity of the seized items preserved despite the prosecution’s failure to show physical inventory and photographs as strictly required by law.
The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). On October 16, 2015, the CA, in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06847, affirmed the RTC decision, holding that prior surveillance was not a prerequisite for a valid buy-bust and that non-strict compliance with Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR would not render the arrest or seized items inadmissible if the integrity of the items was preserved....(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the guilt of the accused for illegal sale (Sec. 5, Art. II, R.A. No. 9165) and illegal possession (Sec. 11, Art. II, R.A. No. 9165) has been proven beyond reasonabl...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)