Title
Belmonte y Goromeo vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 224143
Decision Date
Jun 28, 2017
Three individuals charged under RA 9165 for selling marijuana during a buy-bust operation; Supreme Court upheld conviction, citing preserved drug integrity and proven conspiracy.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 224143)

Case Background

The legal proceedings arose from two separate Informations filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in San Fernando City, La Union, charging Belmonte, Gumba, and Costales with violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 in Criminal Case No. 8979 (illegal sale of marijuana) and Gumba alone with violating Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 in Criminal Case No. 8997 (possession of marijuana). The alleged incidents occurred on November 23, 2010, with law enforcement led by Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Agent Sharon Ominga conducting a buy-bust operation.

Incident Details

On the day of the offense, Agent Ominga received information about Gumba's marijuana sales, which led to the formation of a buy-bust team. The operation involved Ominga posing as a buyer, preparing marked money, and proceeding to a cemetery designated for the transaction. During the operation, Gumba was apprehended for selling a bundle of marijuana, while Belmonte was arrested when he confirmed the buyers' identity, and Costales escaped with the marked money. The subsequent inventory revealed additional quantities of marijuana, resulting in charges against the accused.

Defense and Testimonies

The defendants claimed innocence, asserting they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, with alibis presented by Belmonte, Gumba, and Costales. Belmonte described accompanying Gumba to the cemetery to visit a relative's tomb after briefly borrowing money. They contested the accusations by asserting they were unaware of any drug transactions. The defense focused on disproving the prosecution’s claims about the buy-bust operation's legitimacy.

RTC Ruling

In its November 23, 2011 ruling, the RTC found all defendants guilty, imposing life imprisonment and substantial fines for Belmonte and Costales for illegal sale of drugs, while Gumba received a lesser sentence due to his age. The RTC determined that the prosecution established proof of essential elements for drug sale, including the identity of the participants and the exchange of drugs for money, deeming the testimonies of law enforcement credible.

CA Ruling

Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's ruling on June 30, 2015, supporting the prosecution's demonstrated chain of custody for the evidence against the defendants. The CA reasoned that the procedural shortcomings regarding the inventory signing did not compromise the integrity of the evidence, as the prosecution could trace the drugs from seizure to laboratory testing, maintaining their evidentiary value.

Supreme Court Decision

The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' judgments, ruling that the prosecution had sufficiently met the burden of establishing the chain of custody of the seized drugs. The Court reiterated that while strict adh

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.