Case Digest (G.R. No. L-47941)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Sammy Umipang y Abdul, G.R. No. 190321, April 25, 2012, Supreme Court Second Division, Sereno, J., writing for the Court. The prosecution charged Sammy Umipang y Abdul with (1) sale of a dangerous drug in violation of Section 5 and (2) possession of dangerous drugs in violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), after a buy‑bust operation on April 1, 2006 in Barangay Maharlika, Taguig City. A Station Anti‑Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Force (SAID‑SOTF) buy‑bust team, coordinated with PDEA, acted on a confidential informant’s tip that an individual called “Sam” was selling shabu along Cagayan de Oro Street. PO2 Gasid acted as poseur buyer and paid a marked P500; after the prearranged signal PO2 Gasid alleged that he and back‑up officers arrested the target and recovered one sachet sold in the buy‑bust and five additional sachets from the arrestee. The seized specimens tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride.At trial the defense presented Umipang and his brother, who testified that police forcibly entered the house, arrested him without cause, threatened extortion, and planted evidence. The arresting officers testified that the seized sachets were marked with the initials “SAU” (allegedly the accused’s initials) and inventoried; they also testified that identification of the accused’s full name occurred at the police station and that PO1 Saez prepared the laboratory request and investigation.
The Pasig City Regional Trial Court (RTC) in a 24 July 2007 Joint Decision convicted Umipang of both counts, sentencing him to life imprisonment with a P500,000 fine for the sale (Crim. Case No. 14935‑D‑TG) and to an indeterminate term of 12 years and one day to 14 years and one day with a P300,000 fine for possession (Crim. Case No. 14936‑D‑TG). The Court of Appeals (CA) in a 21 May 2009 Decision (CA‑G.R. CR‑H.C....(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the RTC and the Court of Appeals err in finding that the prosecution’s testimonial evidence was sufficient to convict accused‑appellant of violating Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. No. 9165...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)