Case Digest (G.R. No. 174771)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 174771)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Allan Nazareno y Caburatan, G.R. No. 174771, September 11, 2007, the Supreme Court Second Division, Tinga, J., writing for the Court.The appellee is the People of the Philippines; the appellant is Allan Nazareno y Caburatan, accused of illegal sale of shabu under Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). On 15 September 2003 a PNP buy‑bust team conducted an operation at appellant’s beauty parlor in Iligan City. PO2 Dino Magno acted as the poseur‑buyer, allegedly purchased two sachets of shabu from appellant for P200 (two P100 bills that had been photocopied), signaled his companions, and then turned the sachets over to SPO2 Vivencio Lluisma. PO3 Rene Enterina frisked appellant and recovered the marked money. The arrested articles were later examined by P/S Insp. Aileen Bernido, a forensic chemist, who testified that the two sachets, then marked “A‑01” and “A‑02” and placed in a plastic bag bearing the appellant’s name, tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Appellant pleaded not guilty and testified that he was sleeping when police took him to the station, that he was later shown an envelope containing two sachets and told to get a lawyer, and that his fingerprints were taken and he was made to sign a document despite denying involvement. A civilian witness, Lolita Pasco, observed police taking appellant away but did not see the transaction inside the parlor.
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Iligan City, found appellant guilty in a decision dated 20 September 2004 and imposed life imprisonment and a fine; it ordered confiscation of the sachets. The Court of Appeals, in CA‑G.R. CR‑H.C. No. 00025, affirmed the RTC decision in a 30 June 2006 decision (penalized, with concurrence by Justices Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr., Teresita Dy‑Liacco Flores and Sixto C. Marella, Jr.). The case was brought to the Supreme Court on appeal for final disposition; the Court required supplemental briefs by resolution dated 15 January 2007, which the parties declined to file.
At trial and on appeal the defense highlighted gaps in the custody and identification of the seized sachets: PO2 Magno admitted he did not mark the sachets before turning them over to SPO2 Lluisma and could not say whether an inventory or transfer to an evidence custodian occurred; Bernido testified she received already‑marked specimens but did not know who marked them. The prosecution did not present SPO2 Lluisma—who was allegedly the action officer and the most competent witness to account for marking and custody—despite subpoenas.
Issues:
- Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs charged against appellant?
- Did the prosecution establish the identity and custody (corpus delicti and chain of custody) of the seized sachets to dispel reasonable doubt?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)