Case Digest (G.R. No. 171019)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Rafael Sta. Maria y Indon, G.R. No. 171019, February 23, 2007, Supreme Court First Division, Garcia, J., writing for the Court.The appellant is Rafael Sta. Maria y Indon (appellant); the prosecution is The People of the Philippines (appellee). The RTC of Bulacan, Branch 20, docketed the case as Criminal Case No. 3364-M-2002. The Court of Appeals docketed the appeal as CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00802.
On November 27, 2002 the Provincial Drug Enforcement Group of Bulacan received an intelligence report that one “Fael” (later identified as appellant) was engaging in illegal drug activities in Sitio Gulod, Barangay Pantubig, San Rafael, Bulacan. A surveillance team located a confidential informant who negotiated a P200.00 shabu purchase from appellant. On the evening of November 29, 2002 a buy-bust team led by PO3 Enrique Rullan used PO1 Rhoel Ventura as the poseur-buyer who carried two marked P100 bills and, together with the confidential informant, went to appellant’s house. The poseur-buyer handed the marked bills to appellant and received a heat-sealed sachet, after which the prearranged signal was given and the police arrested appellant, recovering the marked bills. Laboratory examination showed the sachet contained methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) weighing 0.041 gram. Another person, Zedric dela Cruz, was also arrested; paraphernalia were seized from him.
Appellant pleaded not guilty and testified that three men identifying themselves as police burst into his house, frisked and searched him and his companion, handcuffed them, and offered to make him an asset or threaten criminal charges; he denied selling drugs and claimed the police entrapped him. At trial, the buy-bust team members—PO1 Alexander Ancheta, PO1 Rhoel Ventura and PO3 Enrique Rullan—testified to the buy-bust operation and corroborated the chain of events described by the prosecution.
On May 5, 2004 the RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a P500,000 fine; the RTC ordered the seized items transmitted to PDEA. Appellant initially sought review by the Supreme Court, but under this Court’s ruling in People v. Mateo the appeal was transferred to the Court of Appeals for disposition. On November 22, 2005 the Court of Appeals (First Division) affirmed the RTC’s conviction and denied appellant’s appeal. The case returned to the Supreme Court following elevation from the Court of Appeals for resolution of appellant’s contentions that (a) the trans...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May appellant raise for the first time on appeal the alleged violations of Section 21 and Section 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 regarding custody/disposition of seized items and the non-participation of PDEA?
- Did the circumstances of the buy-bust amount to instigation that would exculpate appellant, or was the transaction a proper buy-bust establishing criminal liability?
- Does the absence of PDEA participation in the buy-bust and alleged non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 rend...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)