Case Digest (G.R. No. 194999)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Gloria Nepomuceno y Pedraza, G.R. No. 194999, February 09, 2015, the Supreme Court Second Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court.
The criminal case arose from two Informations filed on August 11, 2003 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Makati, Branch 64: Criminal Case No. 03-2917 charging Gloria Nepomuceno y Pedraza (appellant) with violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs), and Criminal Case No. 04-1407 charging her with violation of Section 15, Article II of RA 9165 (illegal use of dangerous drugs). The sale information alleged that on August 9, 2003 appellant sold 0.03 gram of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) for P100.00; the use information alleged that she tested positive for methylamphetamine after arrest.
Police testimony described a buy-bust operation based on a confidential informant's tip: a Makati PNP Drug Enforcement Unit (DEU) buy-bust team led by PO2 Vicente Barrameda (poseur-buyer) conducted the operation on August 9, 2003 at the corner of Caton and Zobel Streets, Barangay La Paz, Makati. The team provided marked money, the CI introduced PO2 Barrameda to appellant, the money was handed to her, she allegedly turned over a small plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, and PO2 Barrameda lit a cigarette as the pre-arranged signal. PO1 Randy Santos recovered the marked money from appellant; PO2 Barrameda marked the sachet with initials “GPN.” Appellant was arrested, the sachet and its contents were brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory, and Chemistry Report No. D-1002-03 showed the substance tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
Appellant denied selling shabu and alleged an illegal arrest, claiming she was seized at her San Andres, Manila residence by six men in civilian clothes who identified themselves as Makati DEU officers. She also challenged post-seizure procedures, arguing the buy-bust team failed to photograph and inventory the seized drug in the presence of required persons under RA 9165.
The RTC, in a Decision dated April 5, 2006, found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for illegal sale (Crim. Case No. 03-2917) and sentenced her to life imprisonment and a P500,000 fine, but acquitted her for illegal use (Crim. Case...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did appellant waive objections to the legality of her warrantless arrest and to the admissibility of the seized evidence by failing to move to quash the Information or otherwise object before arraignment?
- Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that appellant committed illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165?
- Does the failure to conduct the physical inventory and take photographs as required by Section 21(1), Article II of RA 9165 (and Section 21(a) of its IRR) automatically invalidate the...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)