Case Digest (G.R. No. 229219)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Roderick Lazaro y Flores, G.R. No. 229219, November 21, 2018, the Supreme Court Second Division, A. Reyes, Jr., J., writing for the Court. The prosecution (plaintiff-appellee People of the Philippines) charged accused-appellant Roderick Lazaro y Flores with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). The Information alleged that on January 4, 2008, in Dagupan City Lazaro sold one heat-sealed plastic sachet of shabu (about 0.06 gram) in exchange for marked buy-bust money.On January 4, 2008 a buy-bust operation was conducted by a PNP team led by PO2 Michael C. De Vera with several other officers and a confidential asset/poseur-buyer. The poseur-buyer gave marked money (one Php100 bill and two Php50 bills) to Lazaro, who allegedly handed out a plastic sachet; upon a pre-arranged signal the arresting team apprehended Lazaro. A confiscation receipt was prepared; PO2 De Vera marked the seized sachet and brought it to the PNP Crime Laboratory where the chemistry report tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Lazaro was arraigned on January 7, 2008 and pleaded not guilty.
At trial Lazaro testified he was drinking with a friend when police officers forcibly entered and arrested him; his friend corroborated that officers suddenly burst into the house and effected the arrest. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 42, Dagupan City, found the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt and, in a Decision dated June 26, 2014 in Criminal Case No. 2008-0007-D, convicted Lazaro of violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a P500,000 fine.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 07000 issued a Decision dated February 9, 2016 denying the appeal and affirming the RTC judgment but modifying that Lazaro would not be eligible for parole under the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Lazaro brought an ordinary appeal to the Supreme Court seeking reversal of the CA decision, ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt the identity and integrity of the seized drug (i.e., maintain an unbroken chain of custody) such that Lazaro’s conviction under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 should be sustained?
- If there were lapses in compliance with Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, do those lapses require acquittal when the offense occurred before the amendment effected ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)