Title
People vs. Bolo y Franco
Case
G.R. No. 200295
Decision Date
Aug 19, 2015
Edgar Bolo y Franco convicted for illegal sale and possession of shabu; buy-bust operation upheld, chain of custody intact, defenses of denial and frame-up rejected.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 177741)

Applicable Law

The relevant statute governing the offenses is Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Specifically, Section 5 pertains to the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, while Section 11 addresses the illegal possession of such drugs.

Procedural History

Initially, Edgar Bolo was charged with two separate cases: Criminal Case No. C-74987 for the illegal sale and Criminal Case No. C-74988 for illegal possession of shabu. Following an order from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) on January 23, 2007, the cases were consolidated for joint trial. The RTC found Bolo guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine for sale, and a lengthy imprisonment and fine for possession.

Facts of the Case

The evidence submitted by the prosecution indicated that a buy-bust operation was conducted by police officers on April 1, 2006, based on information from a confidential informant. During the operation, Police Officer 1 (PO1) Rolly Jones Montefrio acted as the poseur buyer and successfully purchased shabu from Bolo. Upon the completion of the transaction, police officers immediately arrested Bolo, seizing the buy-bust money and additional sachets containing shabu that were found in his possession.

Defense and Prosecution's Arguments

Bolo's defense primarily relied on claims of denial and being framed by the police. He recounted being at a graduation celebration where police officers appeared and later detained him without just cause. The defense also questioned the proper custody and handling of the seized drugs, suggesting that the procedures outlined in the law were not followed.

Conversely, the prosecution maintained that the operation was conducted lawfully, evidencing the chain of custody through testimonies from the arresting officers and the forensic chemist who confirmed the contents of the seized items as shabu.

Court of Appeals Decision

Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld the RTC's decision, affirming that there was no break in the chain of custody of the confiscated drugs. The appellate court found that the testimonies provided sufficiently established the elements of both charges and that the prosec

...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.