Case Digest (G.R. No. 207992)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 207992)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Roberto Holgado y Dela Cruz and Antonio Misarez y Zaraga, G.R. No. 207992, August 11, 2014, Supreme Court Third Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court.The accused-appellants, Roberto Holgado and Antonio Misarez, were charged by information dated January 19, 2007 with illegal sale of dangerous drugs in violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 — the charge alleging that on January 17, 2007 in Pasig City they sold to PO1 Philip Aure one heat-sealed plastic sachet containing 0.05 gram of white crystalline substance later tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. They were separately charged for possession of dangerous drugs (Sec. 11) and possession of drug paraphernalia (Sec. 12), but those latter charges were later dismissed or resulted in acquittal at trial.
According to the prosecution, police conducted surveillance after reports of Holgado’s alleged drug activities and, before executing an existing search warrant, staged a buy-bust on the evening of January 17, 2007. PO1 Aure acted as the poseur-buyer; Misarez allegedly handed the marked sachet to PO1 Aure, who signaled consummation by taking out his cellphone. The police tried to arrest the men; they fled into the house and escaped through a ceiling passage but were later apprehended in an adjoining house. A search warrant was then executed reportedly in coordination with a barangay official and in the presence of media; multiple items were seized that gave rise to other cases (which were dismissed).
At the scene, PO1 Aure testified he marked the sachet with “RH-PA.” PO3 Abuyme prepared an inventory of seized items, but the trial court later found the inventory unreliable with respect to paraphernalia. Defense witnesses — the accused themselves, a neighbor, and Holgado’s wife — testified that no buy-bust occurred; that police barged in during a drinking session, handcuffed the accused, conducted a search, and arrested them, claiming the police planted or mishandled evidence.
The Pasig City Regional Trial Court, Branch 154, convicted both accused for illegal sale (Crim. Case No. 15338‑D) and sentenced each to life imprisonment and a fine of P1,000,000, but acquitted them on the possession and paraphernalia charges because the seized items were not properly introduced in evidence or because the inventory was unreliable. The Court of Appeals, in a decision dated February 18, 2013, affirmed the conviction. The accused filed a notice of appeal (March 4, 2013); the Court of Appeals records were forwarded to the Supreme Court and supplemental briefs were allowed. The accused challenged the prosecution’s compliance with the chain‑of‑custody requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640. The Supreme Court, after considering the record and authorities cited by the parties, resolved the appeal.
Issues:
- Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Holgado and Misarez committed illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of RA 9165.
- Whether the prosecution established compliance with the chain‑of‑custody requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165 (as amended), so that the corpus delicti (the seized sachet) could be admitted and given evidentiary weight.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)