Case Digest (G.R. No. 192432)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Larry Mendoza y Estrada, G.R. No. 192432, June 23, 2014, the Supreme Court First Division, Bersamin, J., writing for the Court.The prosecution charged Larry Mendoza y Estrada with violation of Section 5 (sale) and Section 11 (possession) of Republic Act No. 9165. The informations alleged that on August 28, 2007 Mendoza sold two heat-sealed sachets containing 0.03 g and 0.01 g (total 0.04 g) of a substance testing positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) to a poseur buyer for Php 500 (basis for the Section 5 charge), and that after his arrest a separate sachet of 0.01 g testing positive for shabu was recovered from his person (basis for the Section 11 charge).
At trial the prosecution presented Sr. Insp. Vivian C. Sumobay, PO1 Arnel D. Diocena (the poseur buyer/asset), and Insp. Alfredo D.G. Lim. The buy-bust team testified that Diocena effected the buy, marked the seized sachets as LEM‑1, LEM‑2 (the two sold) and LEM‑3 (the one recovered after frisking), and brought them to the police station where photographs were taken and the items were submitted to the PNP crime laboratory; the forensic report confirmed the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride in the three specimens (0.03 g, 0.01 g, 0.01 g). The defense offered Mendoza’s testimony and those of Lolita Flores and Analiza Acapin, presenting an alternative account that he was framed, arrested after acquaintances sought his help, and pressured for “protection money.”
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 67, Binangonan, Rizal, convicted Mendoza on February 24, 2009: life imprisonment and P500,000 fine for Section 5; indeterminate sentence of 12 years and 1 day to 13 years and P300,000 fine for Section 11. The RTC ordered the drug samples forwarded to PDEA for disposition.
Mendoza appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). In CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03901 the CA, in a decision promulgated April 26, 2010 (Veloso, J., penned; Acosta and Bueser, JJ., concurring), affirmed the RTC conviction, relying on the credibility of the police witnesses and finding that any non‑compliance with Section 21(1) of RA No. 9165 and its IRR was not fatal because the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved.
The accused elevated the case t...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the conviction of Larry Mendoza where the buy‑bust team allegedly failed to comply with the chain of custody requirements of RA No. 9165, thereby establishing guilt beyond reas...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)