Case Digest (G.R. No. 232487)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Emma T. Pagsigan, G.R. No. 232487, September 03, 2018, the Supreme Court First Division, Tijam, J., writing for the Court. The accused-appellant is Emma T. Pagsigan; the respondent is the People of the Philippines.
On July 27, 2007, police acting on information from a confidential informant (CI) conducted a buy‑bust in Barangay San Nicolas, City of San Fernando, Pampanga. PO2 Jayson Constantino acted as the poseur buyer and handed marked money to the accused; she allegedly returned one plastic sachet containing shabu. A second sachet and the marked money were later recovered from her when she was asked to empty her pockets. The seized sachets were marked at the barangay hall in the presence of barangay officials and turned over to PO3 Randy Santos, who delivered them to the Regional Crime Laboratory; laboratory results were positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
The accused was charged in two criminal cases: Criminal Case No. 15510 (possession, violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165) and Criminal Case No. 15511 (sale, violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165). At trial the prosecution presented testimony of the police officers and the CI; the defense presented the accused’s testimony that she was at a house with a friend and was arrested, alleging coercion and that others were released while she was detained.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 44, San Fernando City, Pampanga, rendered a Joint Decision dated August 7, 2015 finding the accused guilty of both charges and imposing the penalties prescribed by law; the RTC ordered confiscation of the drugs and remand to the Correctional Institution for Women. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed in a Decision dated January 11, 2017 (CA‑G.R. CR‑H.C. No. 07934), holding that non‑compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 does not automatically render evidence inadmissible where there are justifiable grounds and proof that integrity and evidentiary value were preserved.
The accused appealed to the Supreme Court. The parties litigated, and the Court reached the merits addressing, inter alia, the chain...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the prosecution comply with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (as amended) in the marking, inventory and photographing of the seized items and in securing insulating witnesses?
- If there was non‑compliance with Section 21, did such non‑compliance deprive the prosecution of proof of the identity of the corpus delicti beyond reasonable do...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)