Case Digest (G.R. No. 239635)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Jose Benny Villojan, Jr. y Besmonte alias "Jay-ar", G.R. No. 239635, July 22, 2019, Supreme Court Second Division, Lazaro‑Javier, J., writing for the Court.The prosecution (the People of the Philippines) charged Jose Benny Villojan, Jr. y Besmonte (appellant) with two offenses under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (RA 9165): illegal possession (Section 11, Article II) in Criminal Case No. 2013‑02‑8319 for one tea bag of marijuana (0.147 g), and illegal sale (Section 5, Article II) in Criminal Case No. 2013‑02‑8320 for eight tea bags of marijuana (3.667 g) allegedly sold to a poseur buyer during a buy‑bust operation on April 25, 2012.
At trial the prosecution presented police witnesses (PCI Cirox Omero, PO2 Aubrey Baldevia, PO1 Marlon Grejaldo, PO1 Genus David) who testified that Villojan was on a drug watchlist, had been the subject of a prior test‑buy, and was caught in a buy‑bust where PO2 Baldevia acted as poseur buyer, purchased eight tea bags for P800, and arrested Villojan after a hot pursuit; a separate tea bag was recovered during a body search. The seized items were photographed, inventoried, submitted for laboratory examination, and tested positive for marijuana (Chemistry Reports D‑010‑2012 and D‑09‑2012). The prosecution offered sworn statements, chemistry reports, photos, and inventory receipts.
Appellant denied the sale and claimed frame‑up: he testified he was accosted, handcuffed, and that police planted a tea bag and money in his pocket; a civilian witness, Salvacion Narboneta, corroborated aspects of his account and denied the presence of the claimed inventory witnesses. The defense offered no documentary exhibits.
The trial court found the prosecution witnesses credible, accepted the chemistry reports, and convicted Villojan in a November 25, 2014 judgment: life imprisonment and P500,000 fine for the sale, and 12 years and one day and P300,000 fine for possession, with forfeiture of the seized items and disqualification from certain civil and political rights.
The Court of Appeals, in CA‑G.R. CR HC No. 02074, affirmed the convictions by Decision dated October 23, 2017, finding the elements of illegal sale and possession and an unbroken chain of custody established.
The case reached the Supreme Court by appeal from the Court of Appeals' decision. In the present appeal, appellant argued—inter alia—that the buy‑bust did not occur as described and, critically, that the chain of custody was breached (specifically the seco...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the prosecution able to prove appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165, specifically, was the chain of custody over the seized drugs sufficientl...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)