Appellee Appellant: People of The Philippines, - Wilson Suan Y Jolongon
Appellee Appellant: People of The Philippines, - Wilson Suan Y Jolongon
Appellee Appellant: People of The Philippines, - Wilson Suan Y Jolongon
DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J : p
SO ORDERED. 15
Appellant appealed the trial court's Decision to the CA. Finding no error
committed by the trial court in convicting appellant of the offense of illegal
possession of dangerous drug, the CA affirmed the trial court's decision.
Undaunted, appellant seeks a final recourse before this Court via the
instant appeal.
In the Resolution dated November 24, 2008, we accepted the appeal
and notified the parties that they may file their respective supplemental
briefs if they so desire. However, both parties manifested that they are
adopting their respective briefs earlier submitted with the CA.
In support of his prayer for a reversal of the verdict of his conviction,
appellant contends: a) that the testimonies of the police operatives
contained material inconsistencies and contradictions as to (i) whether a
surveillance was made prior to the buy-bust operation, (ii) whether there was
marked money used in the operation, and, (iii) the amount of the shabu sold;
b) there was no proper identification of the illegal drug; c) the prosecution
witnesses failed to testify on matters regarding the possession of the illegal
drug; and, d) the defense of alibi was not properly appreciated.
Our Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
The inconsistencies in the
testimonies of the police
operatives as regards prior
surveillance and use of marked
money are immaterial.
The doubt cast by the appellant on whether marked money was used
in the operation did not in any way shatter the factuality of the transaction.
Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any of the money
used in a buy-bust operation. 17 Much less is it required that the money be
marked. In fact, not even the absence or non-presentation of the marked
money would weaken the evidence for the prosecution. 18 The elements
necessary to show that the crime had indeed been committed are proof that
the illicit transaction took place coupled with the presentation in court of the
corpus delicti or the illicit drug. 19
It is a fundamental rule that the trial court's findings that are factual in
nature and that involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring
errors; gross misapprehension of facts; or speculative, arbitrary and
unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. 20 The rule
finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained
by the CA. 21 However, this rule will not apply in this case. As will be
discussed shortly, the courts below overlooked two significant and
substantial facts which if considered, as we do now consider, will affect the
outcome of the case.
The prosecution failed to establish
beyond reasonable doubt the
identity of the substance
recovered from the appellant
SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:
A = One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings
EXHIBIT A containing 0.1 gram of white crystalline substance, placed in
a transparent plastic bag with markings EXHIBIT A.
Not only did the prosecution fail to identify the substance that was
allegedly seized from the appellant; it also failed to establish that the chain
of custody of the substance was unbroken.
In his direct testimony, PO2 Labasano testified that:
Q. After arresting the accused, what transpired thereafter?
A. We brought him in our office and we filed a case against him.
Q. By the way, who brought the sachet which you bought from the
accused to the crime laboratory for examination?
A. We, I with Gundol.
Q. And who received that sachet? aCHDST
A. A certain person who was on duty at that time but I do not know
him. 28
Footnotes
1. CONSTITUTION, Article III, Section 14 (12).
2. People v. Simbahon, 449 Phil. 74, 83 (2003); Carino v. People, n G.R. No.
178757, March 13, 2009.
3. Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619, 632.
4. CA rollo, pp. 129-145; penned by Associate Justice Romulo V. Borja and
concurred in by Associate Justices Mario V. Lopez and Elihu Y. Ybañez.
32. G.R. No. 91014, March 31, 1993, 220 SCRA 670, 679.
33. G.R. No. 108453, July 11, 1994, 234 SCRA 51, 61.
34. 432 Phil. 966, 979 (2002).
35. G.R. No. 162064, March 14, 2006, 484 SCRA 639, 647.
36. G.R. No. 175647, May 8, 2009, 587 SCRA 567.