Title
People vs. Pacnisen y Bumacas
Case
G.R. No. 234821
Decision Date
Nov 7, 2018
Bobby Pacnisen is convicted for selling marijuana without a permit, despite procedural deviations in the evidence handling.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 234821)

Facts:

  • Bobby Pacnisen y Bumacas (accused-appellant) was involved in a case against the People of the Philippines (plaintiff-appellee).
  • On September 18, 2012, a buy-bust operation was conducted by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) in Brgy. Urbiztondo, San Juan, La Union.
  • A confidential informant reported Pacnisen's marijuana sales to the PDEA.
  • A buy-bust team was formed, including Agent Efren E. Esmin as the poseur buyer, with marked money totaling P6,000.00.
  • During the operation, Pacnisen confirmed the availability of marijuana and handed over two bricks in exchange for the marked money.
  • The buy-bust team arrested Pacnisen, informed him of his rights, and conducted a body search.
  • The seized items were inventoried in the presence of the barangay captain and a media representative.
  • Laboratory examination confirmed the substance as a dangerous drug.
  • Pacnisen was charged under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) and pleaded not guilty.
  • The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted him on March 30, 2016, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00.
  • The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's ruling on June 21, 2017, leading to an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the RTC and CA's decisions that found Pacnisen guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal drug sale.
  • The Court confirmed that a legitimate bu...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court highlighted that the prosecution must prove two essential elements in drug-related cases:
    1. A transaction involving illegal drugs occurred.
    2. The corpus delicti (illegal substance) was presented in court.
  • The prosecution established both elements through credible testimonies from PDEA agents.
  • The Court acknowledged the importance of Section 21 of RA 9165 regarding the inventory of seized items, noting the absence of a DOJ representative.
  • The explanation from PDEA agents about the urgency of ...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.