Case Digest (G.R. No. 223712)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Victor Sumilip y Tillo, G.R. No. 223712, September 11, 2019, Supreme Court Special First Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court.The accused-appellant is Victor Sumilip y Tillo; the prosecution is the People of the Philippines. Sumilip was charged in an Information with violating Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 (the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for the alleged sale, on July 4, 2009 in San Fernando City, La Union, of 51.15 grams of marijuana to PO2 Ricardo Annague, who acted as a poseur-buyer using marked money.
The prosecution presented three witnesses: PO2 Ricardo Annague (the poseur-buyer), PO3 Paul Batnag (a back-up officer), and Police Senior Inspector Anamelisa Bacani. Their account was that, following a confidential informant's tip, a buy-bust team effected the sale; Annague signaled consummation by removing his cap, arrested Sumilip, and the suspected marijuana was taken to the San Fernando Police Station where it was allegedly marked, inventoried, and photographed before being submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory.
Sumilip denied the charge and testified, supported by family witnesses, that he was accosted earlier while eating at a turo-turo restaurant, held at gunpoint by two men in civilian clothes, frisked and taken away; he alleged the arrest and the presented evidence were staged and that he had been framed.
The Regional Trial Court (Branch 66, San Fernando City) found Sumilip guilty on October 3, 2011 and imposed life imprisonment and a P500,000 fine. The Court of Appeals, in a May 21, 2015 Decision, affirmed the RTC, finding the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody and rejecting the defense of fabrication. Sumilip filed a Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court First Division initial...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the prosecution prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
- Did the prosecution establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized marijuana under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, or, alternatively, show justifiable grounds and specific measures that preserved the integri...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)