Case Digest (G.R. No. 231989)
Facts:
On October 19, 2010, in Cagayan de Oro City, Intelligence Officers of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) acting on a confidential informant’s tip conducted a buy-bust operation against Romy Lim y Miranda (Lim). PDEA’s poseur-buyer allegedly purchased a 0.02-gram heat-sealed sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) from Lim’s stepson, Eldie Gorres y Nave (Gorres), inside Lim’s home. Upon signaling, agents arrested Lim and Gorres, searched them, and purportedly recovered another sachet from Lim’s pocket. No barangay official, media representative, or Department of Justice (DOJ) representative witnessed the immediate inventory, marking, or photographing of the seized drugs. Chemistry reports confirmed the seized items as shabu, yet Gorres tested negative for drug use and was acquitted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC found Lim guilty of illegal possession (Section 11, Article II, R.A. 9165) and illegal sale (Section 5, Article II, R.A. 9165) and sentenceCase Digest (G.R. No. 231989)
Facts:
- Parties and Procedural Posture
- Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines; Accused-Appellant: Romy Lim y Miranda.
- RTC, Branch 25, Cagayan de Oro City convicted Lim of violating Sections 11 and 5, Article II of R.A. 9165; CA affirmed; SC review on appeal.
- Alleged Offenses and Trial
- Illegal Possession (Crim. Case No. 2010-1073): On October 19, 2010 at around 10:00 p.m., Lim allegedly possessed one heat-sealed sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride (0.02 g).
- Illegal Sale (Crim. Case No. 2010-1074): Same date/time, Lim allegedly sold one heat-sealed sachet of shabu (0.02 g) to a PDEA agent for ₱500 buy-bust money.
- Arraignment and Trial: Lim pleaded not guilty; prosecution presented PDEA officers and chemist; defense testified Lim was framed and no proper inventory witnesses; stepson acquitted for lack of conspiracy evidence.
- Evidence and Procedural History
- Prosecution’s Version: Detailed buy-bust operation, marking of sachets, transport to PDEA lab, positive chemical tests, but inventory lacked media/DOJ/public-official witnesses.
- Defense Version: Forced entry by men in civilian clothes, no proper search warrant, coerced admission of ownership, broken lock photographed.
- Appeals: CA affirmed RTC; SC found fatal breaks in chain of custody under Sec. 21, R.A. 9165 and reversed/ acquitted Lim.
Issues:
- Illegal Possession (Sec. 11, Art. II, R.A. 9165)
- Were elements of possession and knowledge of dangerous drug proven beyond reasonable doubt?
- Was the corpus delicti identified and authenticated through an unbroken chain of custody?
- Illegal Sale (Sec. 5, Art. II, R.A. 9165)
- Was the sale transaction element established (offer, delivery, consideration)?
- Did the prosecution prove integrity and identity of the sold shabu via proper chain of custody?
- Procedural Compliance with Sec. 21, Art. II, R.A. 9165 (as amended)
- Did the buy-bust team conduct immediate physical inventory and photography at place of seizure?
- Were the required witnesses (accused or representative; elected official; DOJ or media) present or were there justifiable grounds for their absence?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)