Case Digest (G.R. No. 240224)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Willruss Ortega, G.R. No. 240224, February 23, 2022, the Supreme Court Second Division, Hernando, J., writing for the Court. The prosecution is the People of the Philippines; the accused-appellant is Willruss Ortega. The case arose from Criminal Case Nos. 15891 and 15892 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 13, Laoag City, and was appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA G.R. CR-HC No. 08591 before reaching the Court by ordinary appeal.On February 20, 2014, a buy-bust operation was conducted against Ortega. Police Officer (PO)2 Ramon Christopher Diego acted as poseur buyer; PO2 Lawrence Ganir, PO2 Engelbert Ventura, and PO3 Melecio Antonio, Jr. were back-up; an asset assisted. The buy-bust money (a marked P1,000 bill) was used. The prosecution alleges Ortega sold a plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance (shabu) to PO2 Diego; after the pre-arranged signal, operatives arrested Ortega, and a body search allegedly produced a leather coin purse containing six additional sachets and other items.
The police brought the seized items to the Laoag City Police Station where they photographed, marked, and inventoried the items in the presence of Ortega and Barangay Captain Andres; the Confiscation Receipt bore signatures of Andres and two police officers but not Ortega. Forensic chemist PI Amiely Ann Luis Navarro reportedly examined the items and found them positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Ortega pleaded not guilty and presented an alibi: he said he had been sent to a pharmacy by his live-in partner, May Ann Colobong, who testified she saw Ortega forcibly taken by persons in civilian clothes; Ortega denied selling or possessing drugs.
The RTC (Aug. 19, 2016) found Ortega guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and imposed corresponding prison terms and fines. The CA (Nov. 9, 2017) affirmed, finding police testimony credib...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is Ortega guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165? ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)