Case Digest (G.R. No. 231989)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Romy Lim y Miranda, G.R. No. 231989, September 04, 2018, the Supreme Court En Banc, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.The prosecution charged Romy Lim y Miranda (accused-appellant) with illegal possession (Section 11, Article II) and illegal sale (Section 5, Article II) of Methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) in two Informations dated October 21, 2010; his stepson Eldie Gorres y Nave was jointly indicted in the sale case. The buy‑bust operation alleged that on October 19, 2010 at about 10:00 p.m. Lim sold one heat‑sealed sachet (0.02 gram) of shabu to a PDEA poseur‑buyer for P500, and that another sachet was recovered from Lim upon search.
PDEA operatives (IO1 Albert Orellan, IO1 Nestle Carin, IO2 Vincent Orcales, and others) testified they conducted a buy‑bust after a confidential informant’s tip; they prepared marked buy‑bust money and went to Lim’s house where the poseur‑buyer allegedly purchased the sachet. The operatives claimed they marked and inventoried the two sachets and turned them over to the PDEA regional office and thereafter to the forensic laboratory; Forensic Chemist PSI Charity Caceres tested the specimens and reported positive results for shabu. The operatives acknowledged they did not secure the signatures of an elected public official, DOJ/NPS representative, or media witness on the inventory, and said the inventory/photographs were done at the PDEA office because it was late and raining.
Lim and Gorres denied the prosecution’s version; Lim alleged forced entry and coerced admission; Gorres denied knowledge of the contents of a box produced at the scene. Photos showing damage to the house door were introduced for the defense.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 25, Cagayan de Oro City, found Lim guilty of both offenses and sentenced him accordingly, but acquitted Gorres for lack of evidence. The Court of Appeals (CA) in CA‑G.R. CR HC No. 01280‑MIN affirmed the RTC on February 23, 2017. The case was brought to the Supreme Court on appeal from the CA decision; the Court took up the sufficiency of the prosecution’s proof of the chain of custody under Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and related rules. Trial and appellate records, testimony discrepancies...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the prosecution prove compliance with Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (and its IRR) or, if not, did it establish justifiable grounds and adequate preservation of the integrity of the seized items so as to admit the drug evidence?
- Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt the elements of illegal possession and illegal sale of dangerous drugs given th...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)