Case Digest (G.R. No. 250908)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Ariel Quinones y Loveria, G.R. No. 250908, November 23, 2020, Supreme Court Second Division, Perlas-Bernabe, J., writing for the Court.
The Information charged accused-appellant Ariel Quinones y Loveria with Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Daet, Camarines Norte. The prosecution alleged that on June 14, 2015, Jail Officer Niel A. Romana (JO Romana), while conducting roll call on the second floor of the provincial jail, accosted trustee-inmate Rogelio B. Caparas, frisked him, and recovered a small sealed piece of paper, a plastic sachet containing 0.0944 gram of a white crystalline substance, and a rolled aluminum foil. The seized items were inventoried and photographed in the presence of jail and community officials and later tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).
Caparas testified that the note and sachet were given to him by accused-appellant, who instructed him to deliver the contents to inmate Frederick Cua (Cua). Warden Reynaldo Pajarillo and JO Romana corroborated the sequence of the seizure and subsequent procedures. Accused-appellant denied the charge, claiming he remained in his first-floor cell during the relevant time, refused to sign the inventory, and asserted that he was summoned later to the warden’s office where he was confronted with the accusation.
The RTC, in a September 4, 2017 Judgment, found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Attempted Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs and imposed life imprisonment and a P500,000 fine, crediting the prosecution witnesses and finding no proven ill motive or conspiracy that would cast doubt on Caparas’ testimony. Accused-appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
In a November 29, 2018 Decision, the CA in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 10050 affirmed the RTC conviction, accepting the testimony that...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Attempted Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165, given the evidentiary r...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)