Case Digest (G.R. No. 234273)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Emalyn N. Moreno, G.R. No. 234273, September 18, 2019, Supreme Court Second Division, Caguioa, J., writing for the Court.The People of the Philippines (plaintiff-appellee) charged Emalyn N. Moreno (accused-appellant) by Information with violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 for allegedly selling one heat-sealed sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) weighing 0.016 gram on or about July 12, 2012 at around midnight in Barangay Salong, Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro. Moreno pleaded not guilty; pre-trial and trial on the merits followed.
The prosecution’s evidence, as summarized by the Court of Appeals, recounted a PDEA buy-bust operation: on the evening of 11–12 July 2012 PDEA agents, acting on an informant’s tip, designated Agent Marleo B. Sumale as poseur-buyer and marked the buy money “SMB.” At about midnight a woman identified as “Ara” allegedly handed a plastic sachet to Agent Sumale and received the marked P500.00 bill. Arresting officers converged, frisked Moreno and recovered the marked bill; the sachet was marked by Agent Sumale “SMB 12/07/12,” inventoried at the PDEA office, and sent to the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory. Chemistry Report No. D-065-12 (12 July 2012) concluded the substance tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Moreno denied the charges and interposed a frame-up defense, claiming she was forcibly taken from a tricycle, brought repeatedly to and from a vehicle and the PDEA office, photographed, and detained—asserting the drugs were planted.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 39, Calapan City, convicted Moreno in a Decision dated September 29, 2015 and sentenced her to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00, finding the prosecution proved the elements of the offense and deeming the inventory irregularity at the PDEA office not fatal. Moreno appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
In its Decision dated March 9, 2017 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07977, the CA affirmed the RTC, finding the pro...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the prosecution prove the elements of the offense and the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt?
- Did the prosecution sufficiently comply with Section 21, Article II of the IRR of RA 9165 (chain of custody/inventory requirements) or justify its non‑compliance so as to preserve the evidentiary integrity ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)