Title
People vs. Quinones y Loveria
Case
G.R. No. 250908
Decision Date
Nov 23, 2020
A jail officer found shabu on a minor inmate, who implicated another inmate. The Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to insufficient evidence and unreliable testimony.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 250908)

Applicable Law

This case pertains to the provisions of Republic Act No. 9165, known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002." Specifically, the accused was charged with violating Section 5, in relation to Section 26, which addresses the illegal sale of dangerous drugs and the penalties for such offenses.

Factual Background

The complaint arose from an incident on June 14, 2015, involving Joaquin Caparas, who was found by Jail Officer Romana to be in possession of a small sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, known as shabu. Caparas testified that the narcotics were provided to him by Quiaones and that he was instructed to deliver them to another inmate, Frederick Cua. The items were confiscated, inventoried, and tested positive for illegal substances.

RTC Ruling

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Quiaones on September 4, 2017, for the attempted illegal sale of dangerous drugs and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000. The RTC accepted the testimony of Caparas as credible and direct evidence linking Quiaones to the crime, despite the fact that Quiaones was not found in possession of the drugs at the time of the incident.

CA Ruling

On November 29, 2018, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision. The CA ruled that Quiaones' denial could not outweigh the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, in addition to finding that the prosecution had sufficiently established the elements of the crime and preserved the integrity of the chain of custody of the seized items.

Core Issue

The primary issue for resolution by the Court was whether Quiaones was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the charge of attempted illegal sale of dangerous drugs.

Court's Ruling

The Court granted the appeal and acquitted Quiaones, determining that reasonable doubt existed regarding his guilt. The Court highlighted that the prosecution's case relied significantly on Caparas's testimony, which lacked corroborative evidence from other sources. It noted that Caparas, who was in possession of the illegal drugs, had an incentive to shift blame to Quiaones to evade his own criminal liability.

Evidence Evaluation

The Court critically examined the evidence and concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the identities of the buyer and seller of the drugs with moral certainty. The testimony of Jail Officer Romana and Warden Pajarillo did not support Caparas's claims linking Quiaones to the selling of the drugs, undermining the credibility of the prosecution's case. The note found with Caparas did not specifically mention Quiaones as the supplier or Cua as the intended buyer, further complicating the prosecution

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.