Case Summary (G.R. No. 116487)
Key Dates and Governance
The decision of the Court of Appeals being appealed against was rendered on July 29, 2011. The initial RTC decision was on October 1, 2009. The applicable law in this case is Republic Act No. 9165, known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Background of the Case
Hambora was charged and convicted of violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 for unlawfully selling methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). The Information stated that he sold one sachet containing 0.0743 grams of shabu for ₱400.00 on February 13, 2004, at Montilla Street, Butuan City.
Prosecution's Version of Events
The prosecution showcased that a buy-bust operation was conducted by police officers based on intelligence regarding rampant illegal drug activity in the area. Policeman Andrew Lasco acted as a poseur-buyer, purchasing the sachet of shabu from Hambora. After the sale, police officers arrested Hambora and discovered marked money. The seized substance was later confirmed as shabu by forensic examination.
Defense's Version of Events
Defense claimed that Hambora was merely running an errand when he was arrested. He contended he had no involvement with illegal drugs and requested the presence of barangay officials during his arrest, which was not granted. He maintained his innocence throughout the proceedings.
RTC's Findings
On October 1, 2009, the RTC found Hambora guilty, stating that the testimonies of the police officers were credible and aligned with the elements of the crime. The RTC sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000, while also ordering the confiscation of the seized shabu.
Appeal to the Court of Appeals
Hambora appealed the RTC's decision, arguing against the credibility of the police officers and claiming he was framed. The CA affirmed the RTC's decision, emphasizing that minor inconsistencies in the officers' testimonies did not undermine their credibility and that non-compliance with certain procedural requirements did not invalidate the arrest or disposition of evidence as long as the integrity of the evidence was preserved.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court upheld the CA's findings, stating that the prosecution had established the essential elements of illegal sale of shabu: the identities of the buyer and seller, the object of sale, and the consummation of the transaction. The Court highlighted the importance of the police officers' testimonies and the fact that Hambora was caught in the act of selling illegal drugs.
Chain of Cus
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 116487)
Case Background
- This case involves an appeal by Jayson C. Hambora from the Decision dated July 29, 2011, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00756-MIN.
- The CA affirmed the Decision dated October 1, 2009, of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Butuan City, Branch 4, which found Hambora guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Accusatory Portion of the Information
- The Information specified that on February 13, 2004, at approximately 12:05 PM, at Montilla Street, Butuan City, Hambora unlawfully sold one sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) weighing 0.0743 grams for a consideration of Four Hundred Pesos (₱400.00).
- This act was stated to be contrary to law, specifically to Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
Proceedings and Testimonies
Prosecution's Case
- On February 13, 2004, law enforcement officers from the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) conducted a buy-bust operation at Montilla St., identified as a hotspot for illegal drug activities.
- Prior surveillance confirmed the prevalence of illegal drug trading in the area.
- The police divided into two teams, with PO1 Andrew Lasco acting as the poseur-buyer using marked money.
- Hambora approached Lasco, asked if he wanted to buy shabu, and exchanged the drug for the cash.
- Upon the completi