Case Summary (G.R. No. 140863)
Procedural History
The accused-appellants were charged with two separate offenses related to dangerous drugs on April 17, 2013. The first charge (Criminal Case No. 11-0464) involved the illegal sale of marijuana, while the second charge (Criminal Case No. 11-0465) concerned the possession of drug paraphernalia. After their arraignment, they pleaded not guilty, leading to a trial where various prosecution witnesses, including police officers and barangay officials, testified against them. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque found them guilty on August 20, 2016, and subsequently amended its decision to impose life imprisonment and a fine of one million pesos each on September 6, 2016.
The Role of the RTC
The RTC affirmed the prosecution's case, highlighting that the evidence presented sufficiently proved the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. It dismissed the defense's claims of denial and frame-up due to the lack of evidence of ill motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses. The RTC also acknowledged procedural lapses regarding the presence of required witnesses during the inventory of seized items but concluded that the integrity of the drug evidence had not been affected due to an unbroken chain of custody.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) upheld the RTC's findings, asserting that the essential elements of illegal sale under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 were adequately established. The CA dismissed the defense's arguments regarding procedural lapses under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, focusing on the prosecution's demonstration of proper handling and chain of custody of the seized items, which included the marijuana.
Defense and Arguments Raised by the Appellants
The defense primarily contested the lack of compliance with the mandatory procedures outlined in Section 21, particularly the absence of DOJ, media, and other witnesses during the inventory and seizure of the drugs. They claimed this failure could have compromised the evidence's integrity. Additionally, they pointed to inconsistencies in the testimonies of police officers regarding the buy-bust operation to question their credibility.
Legal Standards for Drug Cases
To convict an accused of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must conclusively prove (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object sold, and consideration exchanged, and (b) the delivery of the object sold and the payment. The prosecution also bears the burden of establishing a complete and unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs from the moment of seizure to the presentation in court.
Analysis of Compliance with Section 21
Section 21 mandates that inventory and photographing of seized drugs must occur in the presence of specific witnesses to ensure their integrity. While the prosecution acknowledged the absence of the required witnesses, it insisted that the integrity of the evidence was preserved. The court stated that procedural lapses do not automati
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 140863)
Introduction
- This case involves an appeal from the Decision dated January 12, 2018, of the Court of Appeals (CA) which upheld the Amended Decision dated September 6, 2016, of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque City.
- The accused-appellants, Rogelio Divinagracia, Jr. y Dornila alias "Ensol" and Rosworth Sy y Bersabal alias "Roro," were found guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Background of the Case
- Two Informations were filed on April 17, 2013, against the accused-appellants for:
- Criminal Case No. 11-0464: Illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
- Criminal Case No. 11-0465: Possession of drug paraphernalia by Sy.
- The charges stemmed from an alleged buy-bust operation conducted on April 25, 2011, in Barangay Don Bosco, Parañaque City.
- The prosecution claimed that Divinagracia sold a self-sealing plastic bag containing 14.58 grams of marijuana to Police Officer 3 Edwin Plopinio, while Sy was found in possession of an improvised glass pipe.
The Prosecution's Evidence
Details of the Buy-Bust Operation:
- An informant reported to the police that Divinagracia was selling marijuana.
- A buy-bust operation was organized, with PO3 Plopinio acting as the poseur-buyer.
- A marked five hundred peso bill was used for the purchase.
- The operation occurred at approximately 8:45 PM; Divinagracia was identified and arrested after the sale.
- The marked money and marijuana were recovered during the arrest.
Witness Testimonies:
- Several police officers, including PO3 Plopinio and PO2 Burgos, testified about the operation and the items seized.
- Kagawad Cho V