G.R. No. 179749
March 1, 2017
Facts:
Under review is the decision promulgated on September 26, 2006, whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision rendered on May 18, 2004 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 28, in Mandaue City convicting the accused-appellant of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended, and sentencing him accordingly. Eddie Barte Y Mendoza was charged in the RTC with a violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, following his arrest for selling a quantity of shabu worth P l00.00 to a police officer-poseur buyer in the evening of August 10, 2002 during a buy-bust operation conducted in Consuelo Village, Mandaue City.
P02 Rico Cabatingan, a witness for the Prosecution, declared that he and other police officers conducted the buy-bust operation at about 9:30 in the evening of August 10, 2002 on the basis of information received to the effect that the accused-appellant was engaged in the sale of shabu. During the pre-operation conference, P02 Cabatingan was designated as the poseur buyer, and his back-up officers were P02 Baylosis and P03 Ompad. P/Insp. Grado provided the buy-bust money with marked serial number to P02 Cabatingan. The buy-bust team then proceeded to Consuela Village at about 9:10 of that evening on board a Suzuki multicab driven by P03 Ompad. At the target area, P02 Cabatingan met with the accused-appellant, and informed the latter that he wanted to buy shabu worth "a peso." Upon the accused-appellant's assent to his offer, P02 Cabatingan handed the buy¬bust money to him, and in turn the latter gave to him a small sachet with white colored contents. P02 Cabatingan then gave the pre-arranged signal by touching his head. The other officers rushed forward and identified themselves to the accused-appellant as policemen. They frisked and arrested him, and brought him to the police station.
In his defense, the accused-appellant declared that he was sitting alone near the chapel of Basak, Mandaue City near their house in Consuela Village at around 9:30 in the evening of August 10, 2002 when police officers suddenly came and arrested him. In undertaking his arrest, the officers pointed their guns at him and forced him to go with them. They brought him to the police precinct on a Suzuki multicab, and upon their reaching the station, the arresting officers searched his person and found his ID inside his wallet. He was not informed of the reason for his arrest. He was subsequently detained. The arresting officers only informed him of the charges against him on the next day.
RTC rendered its decision on May 18, 2004 convicting the accused-appellant, and giving full credence to the testimony of P02 Cabatingan, and ruled that the Prosecution thereby established that the accused-appellant had sold shabu to P02 Cabatingan. Upon the appeal of the accused-appellant, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision and likewise denied his motion for reconsideration on August 8, 2007.
Issue:
Whether or not accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime charged in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
Ruling:
No, the accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime charged in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. Evidently, it is the Court’s jurisdiction that it convicts the accused only when his guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt. Conformably with this standard, it is mandated as an appellate court to sift the records and search for every error, though unassigned in the appeal, in order to ensure that the conviction is warranted, and to correct every error that the lower court has committed in finding guilt against the accused.
Courts are cognizant of the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties of public officers. This presumption can be overturned if evidence is presented to prove either of two things, namely: ( 1) that they were not properly performing their duty, or (2) that they were inspired by any improper motive. It is a matter of judicial notice that buy-bust operations are "susceptible to police abuse, the most notorious of which is its use as a tool for extortion." The high possibility of abuse was precisely the reason why the procedural safeguards embodied in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 have
been put up as a means to minimize, if not eradicate such abuse. The procedural safeguards not only protect the innocent from abuse and violation of their rights but also guide the law enforcers on ensuring the integrity of the evidence to be presented in court. In the prosecution of the crime of selling a dangerous drug, the following elements must be proven, to wit: ( 1) the identities of the buyer, seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. On the other hand, the essential requisites of illegal possession of dangerous drugs that must be established are the following, namely: (1) the accused was in possession of the dangerous drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the dangerous drug.
Such non-compliance with the procedural safeguards under Section 21 was fatal because it cast doubt on the integrity of the evidence presented in court and directly affected the validity of the buy-bust operation. The failure to prove the chain of custody should mean, therefore, that the Prosecution did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the sachet of shabu presented during the trial was the very same one delivered by the accused-appellant to the poseur buyer.
Therefore, the Court acquits accused EDDIE BARTE y MENDOZA of the violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended; and directs the Director of the Bureau of Corrections to release EDDIE BARTE y MENDOZA from custody unless he is detained thereat for another lawful cause.
No comments:
Post a Comment