View full case

KEVIN BELMONTE Y GOROMEO v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

On November 23, 2010, Agent Sharon Ominga of the PDEA received information about a certain "Mac-Mac" selling marijuana. Ominga then coordinated with the PDEA Quick Reaction Force (QRF) and the PNP Provincial Anti-Illegal Drug Special Operation Task Group (PAIDSOTG) to form a buy-bust team. Ominga acted as the poseur-buyer, Agent Ranel Cañero acted as the arresting officer, and they proceeded to the public cemetery of San Gabriel, La Union for the transaction.

Upon reaching the target area, the team encountered Mark Anthony Gumba, Billy Joe Costales, and Kevin Belmonte. Gumba asked if they were the buyers, and after confirming, Ominga received a bundle of suspected dried marijuana leaves from Gumba. Ominga identified themselves as PDEA agents and arrested Gumba and Belmonte, but Costales managed to escape with the marked money.

The buy-bust team waited for the police and barangay officials to arrive before opening the bag that Belmonte and Gumba had with them. Inside the bag, they found four more bricks of dried marijuana. An inventory was conducted, photographs were taken, and the PNP and barangay officials signed the inventory. The seized items were then taken to the PDEA office for examination, where Chemist Lei-Yen Valdez confirmed that the seized items were marijuana.

Belmonte, Gumba, and Costales all denied the charges against them. Belmonte claimed that he and his wife were walking when they stopped at Gumba's house to borrow money. Gumba accompanied Belmonte to the cemetery, where they were apprehended by two PDEA agents. Gumba corroborated Belmonte's testimony and added that he was at home when Belmonte came to borrow money. Costales, on the other hand, stated that he was flagged down by Belmonte and Gumba on his way back to the tricycle station. Costales dropped them off near the cemetery, returned to the station, and later learned of their arrest.

During the arraignment, Belmonte, Gumba, and Costales all pleaded not guilty.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the chain of custody of the confiscated marijuana was properly established.

  2. Whether the conviction of Belmonte for illegal sale of dangerous drugs should be upheld.

  3. Whether there was a valid chain of custody of the seized drugs

  4. Whether the non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 renders the seizure and custody invalid

  5. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of Kevin Belmonte for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.

RULING:

  1. The Court ruled that the chain of custody of the confiscated marijuana was properly established. The subsequent signing of the Certificate of Inventory in a different place did not invalidate the chain of custody, as the prosecution was able to show the continuous whereabouts of the exhibits from the time they came into possession until they were tested in the laboratory. The accused failed to demonstrate that they were elsewhere during the buy-bust operation, making it physically impossible for them to be present at the scene of the crime.

  2. The Court upheld Belmonte's conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The prosecution was able to prove the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration, and the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. Furthermore, there was conspiracy among the accused, as evidenced by their actions during the buy-bust operation.

  3. The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved, and any deviation from the chain of custody procedure was adequately justified. The bricks and bundle of marijuana were immediately marked, photographed, and inventoried upon the arrest of the accused in the presence of witnesses. The confiscated items were then turned over to the PDEA for examination. The continuity of the chain of custody was established through the testimonies of the arresting officer and the PDEA chemist, as well as the identification of the confiscated items in open court. Therefore, there was a valid chain of custody.

  4. Non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 does not automatically render the seizure and custody of the items void and invalid as long as there is a justifiable ground for such non-compliance and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. In this case, the absence of media representatives and a DOJ representative at the time of the arrest and inventory was sufficiently explained by the apprehending officers. The Court also noted that strict compliance with the requirements may not always be possible under varied field conditions. As long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, non-compliance does not render the arrest illegal or the items inadmissible.

  5. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals, affirming the conviction of Kevin Belmonte for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The penalty of life imprisonment and payment of a fine of P500,000.00 imposed upon him were also affirmed.

PRINCIPLES:

  • In order to secure the conviction of an accused charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must prove the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration, and the delivery of the thing sold and the payment.

  • To establish the identity of the prohibited drug beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution must show an unbroken chain of custody from the moment of seizure up to its presentation in court as evidence.

  • The failure to strictly follow the procedure laid out in Section 21 of RA 9165 does not invalidate the crime, as long as the prosecution can satisfactorily show the whereabouts of the exhibits, from the time they came into their possession until they were offered in evidence.

  • The chain of custody rule under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 requires utmost compliance from police officers in handling seized drugs to preserve their integrity and evidentiary value.

  • Non-compliance with the chain of custody rule will not automatically render the seizure and custody of items void and invalid if there is a justifiable ground for such non-compliance and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.

  • The preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items is of utmost importance in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused.

  • Findings of the trial court on factual matters and credibility of witnesses are accorded respect unless there are glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts, or speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions.

  • Arbitrary and unsupported conclusions from factual findings are not acceptable.

  • The findings of facts by the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are given great weight and are generally not disturbed on appeal.