G.R. No. 224143 - Belmonte y Goromeo vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 224143)

Charges and Parties in the Two Criminal Cases

In Criminal Case No. 8979, the RTC charged petitioner Belmonte, along with Mark Anthony Gumba y Villaraza (Gumba) and Billy Joe Costales (Costales), with violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. The Information alleged that, on or about November 23, 2010, in San Gabriel, La Union, and within the RTC’s jurisdiction, the accused—without first securing the necessary permit, license, or prescription—conspired and mutually helped one another to sell, dispense, and/or deliver one bundle of dried marijuana fruiting tops weighing 828.96 grams to 103 Sharon O. Bautista, who posed as a buyer using marked money.

In Criminal Case No. 8997, the RTC charged Gumba with violating Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 for possession of marijuana bricks weighing a total of 3,319.43 grams, with Gumba being a seventeen (17)-year-old minor who acted with discernment.

Prosecution Version: The Buy-Bust Operation

The prosecution relied on the testimony of PDEA Agent Sharon Ominga (Ominga) and the events of a buy-bust operation. Ominga received information from a confidential informant that a person known as “Mac-Mac,” later identified as Gumba, was selling marijuana. Ominga coordinated with the PDEA Quick Reaction Force (QRF) and the PNP Provincial Anti-Illegal Drug Special Operation Task Group (PAIDSOTG), and a team was formed for the operation. Ominga served as the poseur-buyer, Intelligence Officer 1 Ranel Canero (Canero) as arresting officer, and the remaining members as back-up officers.

Ominga instructed the informant to place an order for P2,000.00 worth of marijuana. She prepared four (4) pieces of P500.00 bills, marked them with her initials, and proceeded with the team to the public cemetery of San Gabriel as the designated transaction site. Ominga, Canero, and the informant walked toward the target area while the back-up officers waited in their vehicle.

When Gumba took time to arrive, the team returned toward the vehicle. As they walked, Gumba and two companions came into view. When the three men reached the group, one companion—later identified as Belmonte—asked if they were the buyers. After the informant confirmed, Gumba asked for the money from Canero. Canero pointed to Ominga, who motioned for the marked money to be handed over. However, it was Costales, the other companion, who took the money. Gumba then took a bundle of suspected dried marijuana leaves from a black bag and handed it to Ominga. After Ominga believed the item was marijuana, she declared that they were PDEA agents.

Ominga and Canero were able to arrest Gumba and Belmonte, while Costales escaped with the marked money. The group waited for local police and barangay officials before opening the black bag, which lay on the ground in front of Belmonte and Gumba. When police officers Manzano and Campit, and Barangay Captain Carlos D. Caoeng arrived, Ominga opened the black bag and it yielded four (4) more bricks of dried marijuana wrapped in masking tape. Ominga then slashed small portions of each brick to confirm the contents as marijuana. She placed her initials “SOB,” her signature, and the date of confiscation on the outside of each bundle, including the bundle earlier sold. The team then prepared an inventory and took photographs, and it requested the PNP and barangay officials to sign the inventory.

After returning to the PDEA office in San Fernando City, Ominga prepared the request for laboratory examination dated November 23, 2010, and delivered the seized items to the PDEA for crime laboratory examination. The chemist Lei-Yen Valdez (Valdez), who conducted qualitative and quantitative examination, testified that the seized bricks and bundle contained marijuana. In open court, Ominga and Canero identified the seized items as the same drugs involved in the buy-bust transaction.

Defense Version: Denial, Alibi, and Wrong Place-Wrong Time

Petitioner Belmonte, along with Gumba and Costales, denied the charges and claimed they were at the wrong place at the wrong time. Belmonte testified that, in the morning of November 23, 2010, he and his wife walked from their barangay to town proper of San Gabriel, intending to go to Bauang to get a duck from his aunt. At Barangay Bumbuneg, Belmonte stopped at Gumba’s house to borrow P50.00, which Gumba lent with a request that Belmonte accompany him to the cemetery to visit his grandfather’s tomb. Belmonte and Gumba then rode Costales’ tricycle, but they had to alight at Lipay Road due to palay laid out on the road leading to the cemetery. As they walked toward the cemetery, Belmonte and Gumba were allegedly apprehended by Canero and Atty. Allan Ancheta of the PDEA-QRF.

Gumba corroborated Belmonte and stated that he knew Belmonte from high school and Costales from elementary school.

Costales advanced alibi, claiming that, while returning to the tricycle parking area, Belmonte and Gumba flagged him down because they were batchmates from elementary. He allegedly dropped them off at Lipay Road and returned to the tricycle station near the municipal hall and market. While sitting in a canteen, he allegedly learned that two minors were arrested at the cemetery and saw Belmonte and Gumba inside a police patrol car. Costales and other tricycle drivers allegedly went to the nearby police station, stayed about fifteen minutes, and then returned to the station. After learning of a warrant in Baguio City, he allegedly returned and surrendered voluntarily on January 24 to a police officer who was his neighbor.

RTC Findings and Sentencing

After joint trial was ordered following preliminary conference, the RTC issued a Decision dated November 23, 2011 finding petitioner and the co-accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 in Crim. Case No. 8979 for illegal sale of marijuana. The RTC sentenced Belmonte and Costales to life imprisonment and ordered payment of a fine of P500,000.00 each. For Gumba, who was seventeen at the time of the commission of the crime, the RTC imposed a prison term of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal and a fine of P300,000.00 in relation to the sale case, with a similar penalty imposed in Crim. Case No. 8997 for possession.

The RTC held that the prosecution established all elements for conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs: the identity of buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery of the thing sold and payment. It found the prosecution witnesses credible and capable of proving that the buy-bust operation occurred and that the marijuana subject of sale was brought and duly presented in court. It further found conspiracy among the accused based on the operational role evidence, including petitioner’s inquiry as to whether the poseur-buyer’s group were the buyers, Gumba’s act of handing over the bundle, and Costales’s act of taking the marked money.

CA Review: Chain of Custody and Substantial Compliance

The CA affirmed the RTC Decision in a Decision dated June 30, 2015. The CA ruled that the prosecution successfully established the continuous chain of custody that preserved the identity, integrity, and evidentiary value of the seized marijuana. It held that the signing of the Certificate of Inventory at a different place from where the seizure occurred was not fatal because the prosecution showed the continuous whereabouts of the exhibits from acquisition until testing in the PDEA laboratory.

The CA further applied the governing rule that the offense could still be proven notwithstanding failure to strictly comply with procedural requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165, provided that the prosecution satisfactorily showed the whereabouts of the seized items from the moment of possession through laboratory testing and presentation in court. It also rejected the defense assertion that petitioner was physically elsewhere during the buy-bust operation, finding that petitioner failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he could not have been present.

The CA denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration in its Resolution dated March 14, 2016, prompting the petition for review on certiorari.

Issue Before the Court and Petitioner’s Core Theory

The principal issue was whether petitioner’s conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 should be upheld. Petitioner’s challenge, as carried to the CA and sustained on review, centered on the claim that the chain of custody was not established in accordance with law and procedure, particularly relating to when markings and inventory were done and when signatures for the certificate of inventory were obtained by representatives from the DOJ and the media.

The Court’s Ruling: Conviction Upheld

The Court denied the petition. It reiterated that conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs requires proof of: (a) the identity of buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. It emphasized that the identity of the prohibited drug must be established beyond reasonable doubt through an unbroken chain of custody from seizure to presentation in court.

The Court discussed the statutory Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 chain of custody rule, which requires, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct of physical inventory and photography in the presence of specified persons, and turnover to the PNP Crime Laboratory within twenty-four (24) hours for examination. It also acknowledged the IRR and jurisprudence holding that non-compliance does not automatically void the seizure, so long as there is justifiable ground and the evidentiary value of the seized items is preserved. The Court framed the controlling inquiry as whether integrity and evidentiary value were maintained despite any divergence from the prescribed procedure.

Chain of Custody: Marking, Inventory, Laboratory Examination, and Evidentiary P

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 224143)

The petition for review on certiorari challenged the Court of Appeals decisions that affirmed Regional Trial Court of San Fernando City, La Union, Branch 30 convictions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
The Court identified the controlling question as whether the conviction for illegal sale should be upheld despite claimed defects in the chain of custody.

Parties and Procedural Posture

Petitioner was Kevin Belmonte y Goromeo (Belmonte).
Respondent was People of the Philippines.
The RTC convicted Belmonte in Crim. Case No. 8979 for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 and imposed life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00.

The RTC also convicted Gumba in both a Section 5 case (Crim. Case No. 8979) and a Section 11 case (Crim. Case No. 8997) for possession of dangerous drugs.

The CA affirmed the RTC in its Decision dated June 30, 2015, and denied reconsideration in a Resolution dated March 14, 2016.

Belmonte then filed the present petition, alleging that the chain of custody was not established because critical steps occurred at different places.

Key Factual Allegations

Two separate Informations were filed before the RTC, one for illegal sale under Section 5 and another for possession under Section 11.

In Crim. Case No. 8979, the Information alleged that on November 23, 2010, in the Municipality of San Gabriel, La Union, Belmonte, Gumba, and Costales conspired to sell, dispense, and/or deliver one (1) bundle of dried marijuana fruiting tops weighing 828.96 grams to 103 Sharon O. Bautista, who posed as a buyer using marked money consisting of four pieces of P500.00 bills with specified serial numbers.

In Crim. Case No. 8997, the Information alleged that Gumba, a seventeen (17) year old minor acting with discernment, had in possession four bricks of marijuana dried leaves and fruiting tops with a total weight of 3,319.43 grams.

The prosecution relied on a buy-bust operation conducted by PDEA Agent Sharon Ominga (Ominga) and other PDEA and PNP officers.

Ominga received information from a confidential informant that a person known as “Mac-Mac,” later identified as Gumba was selling marijuana.

Ominga designated herself as poseur-buyer and Canero as the arresting officer, while other officers served as backup.

Ominga instructed the agent to order marijuana worth P2,000.00, prepared four marked P500.00 bills, and proceeded with the team to the public cemetery of San Gabriel, La Union.

When Gumba approached with two male companions, one companion was identified as Belmonte and another as Costales.

Ominga confirmed that the buyer-side group was the target purchasers, after which Gumba asked for the money and Costales took the marked bills.

Gumba handed to Ominga a bundle of suspected dried marijuana leaves from a black bag.

When Ominga believed the item to be marijuana, she declared the group as PDEA agents, and the arrest of Gumba and Belmonte followed, while Costales escaped with the marked money.

The seized items, including the black bag, were placed on the ground in front of Belmonte and Gumba, and the team waited for local police and barangay officials before opening the bag.

After police officers and the Barangay Captain arrived, Ominga opened the black bag and found four more bricks of dried marijuana wrapped in masking tape.

Ominga slashed a small portion from each brick to confirm the contents, then placed her initials “SOB,” her signature, and the date of confiscation on each bundle, including the bundle earlier sold.

The team prepared an inventory, photographed the activity, and requested the arriving police and barangay officials to sign the inventory.

After returning to the PDEA office, Ominga prepared the request for laboratory examination and later delivered the seized items for chemistry examination.

The PDEA chemist, Lei-Yen Valdez (Valdez), testified that quantitative and qualitative examination confirmed the seized items contained marijuana.

The accused denied the charges.

Belmonte claimed he was merely borrowing money and accompanying Gumba to visit a tomb, and that he was arrested by PDEA officers while walking toward the cemetery.

Gumba corroborated Belmonte’s narrative about being at home and being asked by Belmonte to accompany him to the cemetery.

Costales advanced alibi, claiming he was at the tricycle station, learned of arrests involving two minors, and later surrendered upon learning of a warrant.

RTC and CA Findings

The RTC held that the prosecution established all elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs: identity of buyer and seller, object and consideration, delivery, and payment.

The RTC credited the prosecution witnesses for their consistent narration of the buy-bust operation and viewed the defenses of alibi and alleged framing as easily concocted.

The RTC found conspiracy among the accused based on conduct during the transaction.

The RTC reasoned that Belmonte asked if Ominga and her team were the buyers, Gumba handed over the marijuana bundle, and Costales took the marked money.

The CA affirmed that the prosecution successfully established a continuous chain of custody preserving identity, integrity, and evidentiary value of the drug.

The CA held that the signing of the Certificate of Inventory at a different place from where inventory and marking were first done did not defeat the case, because the prosecution showed continuous whereabouts from arrest site to laboratory testing.

The CA appli