BELMONTE v PEOPLE

KEVIN BELMONTE y GOROMEO vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R No. 224143 

June 28, 2017

FACTS: 

The instant case stemmed from two (2) separate Informations filed before the R TC accusing: (1) Belmonte, Gumba, and Costales of violating Section 5, 8 Article II of RA 9165; and (2) Gumba of violating Section 11, Article II of RA 9165. The prosecution alleged that at around 9 o'clock in the morning, PDEA Agent Sharon Ominga received information from a confidential informant (agent) that a certain "Mac-Mac," later identified as Gumba, was selling marijuana. Ominga immediately coordinated with the PDEA and the PNP and a buybust team was formed. 

The buy bust team was able to recover the black bag which yielded four (4) more bricks of dried marijuana wrapped in masking tape. Satisfied that it was marijuana, she placed her initials "SOB," signature, and the date of confiscation on the outside of each bundle, including the bundle earlier sold to them. Ominga's group then prepared an inventory, photographed the activity, and asked the PNP and barangay officials to sign the inventory. 

Thereafter, Ominga's group returned to the PDEA office in San Fernando, La Union where Ominga prepared the request for laboratory examination, among other necessary documents. Ominga then delivered the seized items to the PDEA for crime laboratory examination. In a Decision the RTC found Belmonte, Gumba, and Costales guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II, of RA 9165 for illegal sale of marijuana. 

The RTC held that all the elements for the prosecution of sale of dangerous drugs, namely: the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration, and the delivery of the thing sold, and the payment therefore, were all established. The CA affirmed the RTC ruling, finding that the prosecution successfully established the continuous chain of custody of the confiscated marijuana which preserved the identity, integrity, and evidentiary value of the illicit items. 

ISSUE: 

Whether or not Belmonte's conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, should be upheld? 

RULING/S: 

YES. In order to secure the conviction of an accused charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must prove the: (a) identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (b) delivery of the thing sold and the payment. In this relation, it is essential that the identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond reasonable doubt. 

In order to obviate any unnecessary doubts on the identity of the dangerous drugs, the prosecution has to show an unbroken chain of custody over the same. It must be able to account for each link in the chain of custody over the dangerous drug from the moment of seizure up to its presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti. 

Records bear that the bricks and bundle of marijuana confiscated from the accused were immediately marked, photographed, and inventoried upon the arrest of Belmonte and Gumba, and that the markings were done by Ominga herself who placed her initials, signature, and the date of confiscation thereat in the presence of Belmonte, Gumba, the back-up officers from the PDEA and the PNP, and the Barangay Captain of Poblacion, San Gabriel. After the inventory and photography at the arrest site, Ominga and her team returned to the PDEA office where Ominga personally prepared the crime laboratory examination request which she delivered to the PDEA chemist, together with the bricks and bundle of marijuana confiscated.