Case Digest (G.R. No. 258316)
Facts:
In the case of *People of the Philippines vs. Norberto Verdadero y Pimentel* (G.R. No. 258316, November 20, 2023), the appellant, Norberto Verdadero y Pimentel, was charged with violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The events took place on September 27, 2017, in Barangay Ganduz, Pantabangan, Nueva Ecija. The prosecution's case against Verdadero stemmed from a buy-bust operation initiated after a confidential informant notified the local police about his illegal drug activities. Following this information, a buy-bust team was formed, with Police Officer 2 (PO2) Sison posing as the buyer.At approximately 12:45 PM that day, accused-appellant met the informant and PO2 Sison, subsequently agreeing to sell shabu (methamphetamine), handing over one sachet for payment. Following the transaction, police apprehended Verdadero, recovering marked money and an additional six sachets of shabu from his
...Case Digest (G.R. No. 258316)
Facts:
- Case Background
- The case involves an appeal filed by Norberto Verdadero y Pimentel (accused-appellant) challenging the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA).
- The CA had affirmed the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) Joint Decision dated 06 September 2018 which found the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of:
- Illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (RA) 9165.
- Illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of the same law.
- The charges pertained to Criminal Case Nos. 4970-2017-P and 4971-2017-P, respectively.
- Incident and Operational Details
- On 27 September 2017, a confidential informant reported illegal drug activities in Barangay Ganduz, Pantabangan, Nueva Ecija.
- Acting on the tip-off:
- Police Senior Inspector Melchor T. Pereja organized a buy-bust team.
- The team members included PO2 Sison as the poseur-buyer, backed up by PO1 Bautista and PO1 Ramos.
- The buy-bust operation proceeded as follows:
- The accused-appellant arrived at the designated meeting place around 12:45 p.m.
- A handshake occurred between the accused-appellant and the confidential informant, with PO2 Sison introduced as a friend.
- An exchange took place where the accused-appellant asked a question regarding the price and subsequently offered a blue checkered pouch containing a plastic sachet of suspected shabu.
- PO2 Sison received the sachet in exchange for marked money.
- Post Transaction:
- PO2 Sison signaled the consummation of the sale by placing his hand on the accused-appellant’s shoulder.
- PO1 Bautista and PO1 Ramos assisted in restraining the accused-appellant.
- During the subsequent frisking, a blue checkered pouch containing six additional heat-sealed plastic sachets of suspected shabu was recovered.
- Post-Arrest Procedures:
- The seized items were taken to the police station where they were marked and inventoried in the presence of a media representative (Leovigildo Uera) and Barangay Kagawads Saturnina OrdoAa and Angelita Sapigao.
- The items were then transported to the Provincial Crime Laboratory Office in Cabanatuan City, where forensic examination confirmed that the contents tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
- Prosecution and Defense Versions
- Prosecution Version:
- Detailed account of the buy-bust operation, including the pre-arranged signal after the transacted sale.
- Emphasis on the chain of custody of the seized items from arrest until forensic processing.
- Defense Version:
- The accused-appellant denied the charges against him.
- He claimed he was at a farm (working as a caretaker and farmer) with Rommel Baldonado at the time of the incident.
- Alleged that his compliance with police orders during the inventory was due to fear and not an admission of guilt.
- Contended that the buy-bust operation was fabricated and that his arrest resulted from the police’s coercive actions.
- Trial Court (RTC) Decision
- The RTC, in its consolidated decision, found the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt:
- For violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs) – sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000.00.
- For violating Section 11, Article II of the same law (illegal possession) – sentencing him to an imprisonment period ranging from twelve years and one day to fifteen years and a fine of ₱300,000.00.
- The court’s findings were substantially based on:
- The detailed testimony of the prosecution witness which established the sequence of the buy-bust operation.
- The recovery of the sachets and the associated chain of custody.
- Appellate Proceedings
- The accused-appellant challenged the RTC ruling before the CA.
- The CA, in its Decision dated 19 November 2020, affirmed the RTC’s conviction by relying on:
- Testimonial evidence establishing the elements of illegal sale and possession.
- The unbroken chain of custody of the seized items.
- Rejection of the accused-appellant’s denial and claim of a frame-up.
- Issues with the Chain of Custody
- The marking of the seized drugs was not executed immediately upon confiscation as mandated.
- Instead of being marked at the place of seizure, the sachets were marked later at the police station during inventory.
- No justifiable grounds were presented to excuse this delayed marking, which compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.
Issues:
- Whether the CA correctly found the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for:
- Illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165.
- Illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165.
- Whether the prosecution successfully established the chain of custody, particularly the immediate marking of the seized sachets, as required by the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165.
- Whether the failure to comply with the marking procedures, and the consequent compromise of the evidence’s integrity, warrants the accused-appellant’s acquittal.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)