Title
Supreme Court
People vs. Fundales Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 184606
Decision Date
Sep 5, 2012
Appellant convicted for illegal shabu sale in a buy-bust operation; SC upheld conviction, citing preserved evidence integrity and presumption of police regularity.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 112519)

Procedural History

On April 18, 2008, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's guilty verdict against Calexto Duque Fundales, Jr. on charges of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, as set forth in Section 5, Article II of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (Republic Act No. 9165). The RTC originally rendered its decision on March 18, 2006, sentencing Fundales to life imprisonment and a fine of PHP 500,000. Appeals followed, leading to the current proceedings.

Charges Against the Appellant

The prosecution charged the appellant with multiple violations under Republic Act No. 9165, including:

  1. Criminal Case No. 03-1425: Illegal sale of 0.10 grams of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu).
  2. Criminal Case No. 03-1426: Illegal possession of 0.02 grams of shabu.
  3. Criminal Case No. 03-1427: Illegal possession of drug paraphernalia along with several co-accused.

Events Leading to Arrest

On December 2, 2003, a buy-bust operation was conducted by the Parañaque City Police, based on a tip from a confidential informant indicating illegal drug activities by the Fundales brothers. During this operation, Police Officer 1 (PO1) Soquiñya acted as the poseur-buyer, successfully purchasing shabu from the appellant, who subsequently handed over multiple sachets containing the substance.

Conviction by the RTC

The RTC found the appellant guilty in case 03-1425, emphasizing the credibility of the police officers’ testimonies. The court dismissed the other two charges, citing insufficient evidence. The decision underscored the integrity of the drug evidence handled during the buy-bust operation.

Appeals and Arguments

On appeal, the appellant contended that the RTC had erred in convicting him due to perceived lapses in the prosecution's evidence and claims that no buy-bust operation occurred. He specifically noted the absence of the forensic chemist's testimony as detrimental to establishing his guilt, arguing that without this testimony, the corpus delicti was not sufficiently proven.

Rulings on Evidence and Procedural Issues

The Supreme Court clarified that the burden of proof in drug-related cases requires establishing the identity of the buyer, seller, and the substance sold. The Court rejected the appellant's arguments regarding the non-presentation of the forensic chemist, maintaining that the corpus delicti was established through other corroborating evidence.

Furthermore, it noted that the integrity of the drugs was preserved despite the appellant's claims of improper procedural handling by law enforcement, as no objections were raised during trial about the seizu

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.