GR No 208093

People of the Philippines vs Salim Ismael

GR No 208093         February 20, 2017

Facts:

            Salim was charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article 2 of RA No 9165 for selling and possessing shabu. A confidential informant reported to the police that a certain Salim was engaged in selling shabu near the Muslim cemetery of the city. Acting on said information, the police formed an entrapment unit for the buy-bust operations. After the successful operations, Salim was found to have sold shabu to the poseur-buyer and possessing two more plastic sachets of the said prohibited drug.

            RTC rendered its judgment finding Lopez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of having violated Sections 5 and 11 of Article 2 of the RA No 9165. The trial court gave full credence to the testimonies of the police who conducted the buy-bust operations against Salim. It also rejected the defense of frame-up as it is easily concocted and commonly used as a standard line of defense in similar prosecutions. The CA affirmed in toto the RTC’s judgment. It held that elements of both illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs had been duly proven in the instant case.

         Salim appealed to SC contending that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable ground because the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the prohibited drugs allegedly seized from him and thus failed to comply with the strict requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165.

Issue:

          WON Salim was guilty beyond reasonable ground of the charges against him.

Held:

          The appeal is meritorious.

         To secure a conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 Article 2 of RA 9165, prosecution must establish the following elements: 1) identity of the buyer and seller; and 2) delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is important is that the sale transaction of drugs actually took place and that the object of the transaction is properly presented as evidence in court and is shown to be the same drugs seized from the accused. On the other hand, for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be established: 1) the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs; 2) such possession was not authorized by law; and 3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of dangerous drugs.

After careful examination of the record of the case, SC found that the prosecution failed to establish the unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs in violation of Section 21, Article 2 of RA No 9165.

Based on evidence of prosecution, no markings were made immediately after the arrest of Salim. The same were allegedly turned over to the desk officer. The drugs were only marked at the police station. There was no inventory made or photographs taken of the seized drugs in the presence of the accused or his representative, or in the presence of any representative from the media.

Due to apparent breaks in the chain of custody, it was possible that seized item subject to sale transaction was switched to the ones subject for illegal possession. It is important to distinguish as the punishment depends on their respective quantity or weight.

GR No 229861

People of the Philippines vs Francisco Ejercito

GR No 229861         July 2, 2018

Facts:

            Ejercito was charged with the crime of rape defined and penalized under Article 266-A, in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 8353 otherwise known as the Anti-Rape Law of 1997.

            On October 2001, AAA, then a 15-year-old high school student was cleaning the chicken cage at the back of their house when she saw Ejercito pointing a gun at her and dragged her to a nearby barn, removed her shorts and underwear, while he undressed and himself on top of her. After Ejercito finished the sexual act, he casually walked away and warned AAA not to tell anybody or else her parents will get killed. The following day, AAA was absent from school and she headed to CCC, her aunt, whom she confided the incident. AAA moved to the city but Ejercito was able to track her; AAA became his sex slave then later a paramour. After rehabilitation, AAA confided with BBB, her mother, about the rape incident back in 2001. A complaint was filed against Ejercito.

            The RTC found Ejercito guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. He appealed to CA which affirmed the RTC ruling. Hence, Ejercito appealed with the SC.

Issue:

            WON Ejercito’s conviction must be upheld.

Held:

            The appeal is without merit.

            SC held that for a charge of rape by sexual intercourse under Art 266-A (1) of the RPC, as amended by RA 8353, to prosper, the prosecution must prove that a) the offender had a carnal knowledge of a woman; and b) he accomplished this act under the circumstances mentioned in the provision. The gravamen of rape is sexual intercourse with a woman against her will.

            In this case, the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the presence of all elements of rape by sexual intercourse through AAA’s positive testimony. The RTC, as affirmed by CA, found AAA’s testimony to be credible, noting further that Ejercito failed to establish any ill motive on her part which could have compelled her to falsely accuse him of the aforesaid act.

            The Court remains mindful of the Section 5(b) of RA 7610 which equally penalizes those who commit sexual abuse by means of either a) sexual intercourse, or b) lascivious conduct against a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse. In this case, it has been established that Ejercito committed the act of sexual intercourse against and without the consent of AAA, who was only 15 years of age at the time. As such, she is considered under the law as a child who is exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse.

            There being two laws that punish sexual abuse, both may theoretically apply to the same case. They should be harmonized is possible and if there is any conflict, then the one that deals with a part of the same subject in a more detailed way shall prevail whether it was passed prior to the general statute.

            Hence, Ejercito being charged and convicted of having sexual intercourse with a minor, provisions under RA 8353 should prevail over RA 7610.