Case Digest (A.C. No. 4809)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Abdulwahid Pundugar, G.R. No. 214779, February 07, 2018, the Supreme Court First Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff-appellee is the People of the Philippines; the accused-appellant is Abdulwahid Pundugar y Imam.On May 24, 2008 a police informant alerted the Anti-Illegal Drugs unit of Muntinlupa City that a man known as “Tatay” (later identified as appellant) was dealing illegal drugs in Purok 7, Brgy. Alabang. A buy-bust team was formed; PO2 Domingo Julaton III acted as the poseur-buyer and was given buy-bust money. From about ten meters away the team observed appellant conversing with two companions; the informant introduced Julaton as a prospective buyer. Julaton handed P500 and received a sachet; he signalled the back-up, PO2 Elbert Ocampo, who arrested appellant, recovered one sachet identified as the item sold and retrieved four additional sachets from appellant’s pocket. The items were photographed and marked—marks “AB” (item sold) and “AB-1” to “AB-4” (items recovered)—and inventoried at the police station. The substances were submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory; Forensic Chemist PSI Mark Alain Ballesteros reported they tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Appellant denied selling or possessing the drugs; he and his daughter testified that he was at his store when men suddenly handcuffed him and took him to the police station, and that nothing was recovered from him or the store. The People charged appellant with violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Criminal Case Nos. 08-370 and 08-371).
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 204, Muntinlupa City, convicted appellant on March 28, 2012: for illegal sale (Sec. 5) it sentenced him to life imprisonment and a P500,000 fine; for illegal possession (Sec. 11) it imposed an indeterminate term (minimum 12 years and 1 day to maximum 14 years) and a P300,000 fine. The Court of Appeals denied appellant’s appeal in its November 28, 2013 Decision (CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05530), rejecting claims of broken...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was there unjustified noncompliance with the chain of custody requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 (as in force at the time of the seizure) such that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were compromised?
- Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt the elements of illegal sale (Sec. 5) and illegal possession (Sec. 11), Article II of RA 9165?
- Were the penalties imposed by the RTC (and affirmed ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)