Title
People vs. Abella y Sedego
Case
G.R. No. 213918
Decision Date
Jun 27, 2018
Accused convicted for illegal sale and possession of shabu; prosecution proved elements, chain of custody intact, and witness credibility upheld.
drug case
conviction
sentencing

Case Summary (G.R. No. 213918)

Factual Background

On January 18, 2009, a PDEA surveillance allegedly confirmed that the accused-appellants were selling dangerous drugs at Upper Luke Wright, Dumaguete City. On January 19, 2009, a buy-bust operation was conducted by a PDEA team composed of SPO1 Manuel Sanchez, SPO2 Douglas Ferrer, SPO1 Allen June Germodo, SI Nicanor Ernesto Tagle, PO2 Glenn Corsame, and others. A PDEA asset, poseur-buyer Urseevi Tubio, acted as the buyer. During the operation Tubio purportedly handed buy-bust money to Evangeline Abella y Sedego, who passed it to Mae Ann Sendiong; Sendiong allegedly handed a heat-sealed transparent sachet to Abella who in turn gave it to Tubio. The team effected the arrest and recovered one sachet from the transaction and another sachet from a swiss-knife key holder seized from Sendiong. The sachets were marked on the scene, inventoried in the presence of witnesses, photographed, submitted to the PDEA forensic laboratory the same day, and examined by Police Chief Inspector Josephine S. Llena who found each sachet to contain 0.01 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride. The seized items were resealed by the forensic chemist and later delivered to the RTC.

Trial Court Proceedings

The prosecution charged the accused-appellants in an amended Information in Criminal Case No. 19359 with violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 for the illegal sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride. In Criminal Case No. 19381, Mae Ann Sendiong was charged with violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 for illegal possession. A joint trial ensued. The prosecution presented the buy-bust team, the poseur-buyer, and documentary and photographic exhibits showing marking, inventory, laboratory request, and laboratory certification. The accused-appellants testified in their defense and denied knowledge of the seized items and challenged aspects of the operation and the chain of custody. The RTC found the prosecution witnesses credible, held that each element of the charged offenses had been proven beyond reasonable doubt, and convicted both accused-appellants of sale under Sec. 5, Art. II, and convicted Sendiong of possession under Sec. 11, Art. II. The RTC imposed life imprisonment and fines for the sale convictions and an indeterminate term and fine for the possession conviction, and ordered forfeiture of the seized sachets.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals

The accused-appellants appealed to the Court of Appeals. The CA reviewed the judgments and affirmed the RTC in toto. The CA agreed that the elements of the crimes had been established beyond moral certainty, that the operation constituted legitimate entrapment rather than instigation, and that the testimonies of the buy-bust team and the poseur-buyer were credible and consistent with one another. The CA thus upheld the convictions and sentences rendered by the RTC.

Issues Presented on Appeal to the Supreme Court

The accused-appellants urged several assignments of error. Evangeline Abella y Sedego argued that (1) the prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt and (2) the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the seized sachet. Mae Ann Sendiong argued that an irreconcilable conflict existed between the testimony of the PDEA asset Tubio that he acted as poseur-buyer and the testimony of certain police officers who referred to the confidential informant as the poseur-buyer, and that this conflict fatally undermined the prosecution’s case.

The Court’s Review of Appellate Jurisdiction and Standard

The Court reiterated that an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review and confers plenary jurisdiction on the appellate court to examine the records and correct errors, citing People v. Crispo and People v. Ano as authority for the breadth of appellate review. The Court observed that findings of fact touching on witness credibility receive deference where no glaring errors or misapprehensions are shown, and that the CA’s affirmance strengthens that deference.

Legal Elements and the Court’s Finding on Entrapment and Predisposition

The Court stated the elements of illegal sale under Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 as the identity of buyer and seller, the object of the sale, and the delivery and consideration. The elements of illegal possession under Sec. 11, Art. II were set out as possession of a prohibited drug, lack of legal authorization, and conscious possession. The Court analyzed instigation versus entrapment, reiterating the controlling test that distinguishes inducement originating in the law enforcer (instigation) from criminal intent originating in the accused (entrapment), and quoted jurisprudence including People v. Doria. Examining the sequence of acts, the Court found that the accused-appellants freely transacted with Tubio, received payment, and delivered the sachet. The Court further relied on prior surveillance showing the accused-appellants selling drugs the day before, and on the presence of other sachets in Sendiong’s possession, to conclude that the criminal intent originated with the accused-appellants and that the operation constituted proper entrapment. The Court rejected the contention that the absence of a police officer beside the poseur-buyer was an element required by Sec. 5, Art. II or by precedent.

The Court’s Analysis on Alleged Inconsistencies Regarding the Poseur-Buyer

The Court addressed the asserted conflict over who acted as poseur-buyer. It accepted the explanation that the confidential informant declined to act as buyer and that Tubio, who had acted in prior operations, was designated during the briefing to act as the poseur-buyer and was shown photographs for identification. The Court found that inadvertent imprecision in terminology by police witnesses did not create a fatal conflict. The Court emphasized the congruence between Tubio’s first-hand narration and the buy-bust team’s testimonies on material facts.

The Court’s Analysis on Chain of Custody and Identity of the Corpus Delicti

The Court emphasized that the corpus delicti in a dangerous-drug prosecution is the dangerous drug itself and that the prosecution must prove the identity and integrity of the seized drug through an unbroken chain of custody. The Court reiterated the four custodial links required by jurisprudence: seizure and marking; turnover to the investigating officer; turnover to the forensic chemist for examination; and turnover by the chemist to the court. The Court then reviewed the evidence and concluded that each link was established. The buy-bust team marked the sachets on the scene with identifiable inscriptions, conducted an inventory in the presence of witnesses and the accused-appellants, photographed the inventory, and had the inventory signed by witnesses. PO2 Corsame retained physical custody to the PDEA office where he prepared the laboratory request and turned the items over to PCI Llena. PCI Llena received the items, examined them the same day, reported positive findings for methamphetamine hydrochloride, resealed the sachets with masking tape, affixed new markings, secured the items in a locked evidence cabinet to which she alone had access, and delivered them to the RTC on January 30, 2009. The Court concluded that these

...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.

About Privacy Terms