Case Digest (G.R. No. 212994)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Joshua Que y Utuanis, G.R. No. 212994, January 31, 2018, Supreme Court Third Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court.In July 2003 two Informations were filed charging accused-appellant Joshua Que y Utuanis with (a) illegal sale of a small sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) (Section 5, R.A. No. 9165) and (b) illegal possession of another sachet of shabu (Section 11, R.A. No. 9165). The alleged buy-bust occurred on July 26, 2003 in Zamboanga City; the amounts involved were 0.0157 gram and 0.0783 gram respectively. Que filed a Motion to Quash and for Warrant of Arrest (July 30, 2003) and pleaded not guilty at arraignment on June 7, 2004.
During preliminary proceedings the prosecution presented PO3 Sammy Romina Lim as the poseur-buyer, SPO1 Samuel Tan Jacinto as arresting officer, and Police Chief Inspector Mercedes D. Diestro as forensic chemist; P/C Insp. Nickson Babul Muksan organized the operation and SPO4 Eulogio Tubo prepared the laboratory request and marked the seized sachets, though the prosecution did not present SPO4 Tubo at trial. The prosecution adopted the testimonies from the bail hearings at the meritorious trial. Que testified for the defense, denying selling shabu and describing being accosted and taken to a house before being brought to the police station.
Branch 12, Regional Trial Court, Zamboanga City denied bail (January 24, 2007) and, in a July 17, 2008 Judgment, convicted Que of both counts, imposed life imprisonment and fines for the sale charge, and an indeterminate term and fine for possession; the seized items were ordered forfeited. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC in an August 12, 2013 Decision. Que filed a Notice of Appeal; the Court of Appeals forwarded the records to the Supreme Court, which, by Resolution dated August 6, 2014, allowed supplemental briefs; Que filed a supplemental brief and the Office of the Solicitor General manifested it would not file one. The Supreme Court Thi...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the prosecution prove accused-appellant Joshua Que’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
- Did the prosecution comply with the chain-of-custody requirements of Section 21, R.A. No. 9165, so as to establish the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti?
- If there was noncompliance with Section 21(1), did the prosecution establish “justifiable grounds” and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were nonet...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)