Case of Ampuan

SANCHEZ, JOHANNALYN M.
G.R. No. 215942
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee

vs.
KUSAIN AMIN y AMPUAN, a.k.a. "Cocoy,", Accused-Appellant.
FACTS:
This is an appeal assailing the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA which affirmed the
Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs under Section 5, paragraph 1,
Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165.
That on January 2, 2004, at 5:40 p.m. more or less, at Landless, Colrai, Macabalan,
Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines,, the accused without authority of law, did then and there
wilfully and feloniously have in his possession custody and control one (1) small heated-sealed
transparent plastic sachet of white crystalline substance locally known as shabu and sold it to a
poseur-buyer of PNP-CDO for a consideration of P100.00 marked money one (1) pc one
hundred pesos bill, well knowing it to be a dangerous drug. He pleaded not gilty to the charge.
However, the Court hereby finds the accused, Kusain Amin y Ampuan GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Sec. 5, par. 1, Article II of R.A. 9165, and hereby
sentences him to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of ₱500,000.00.
The trial court held that the prosecution had successfully proved the existence of all the
essential elements of the crime, accused-appellant having been "positively identified by the
police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation as the seller of the shabu presented in
the case. Moreover, the RTC found that the identity of the dangerous drug was sufficiently
proven because the prosecution was able to establish the chain of custody, from the time it was
sold by accused-appellant to when it was presented in court.
In convicting appellant of the crimes charged, the CA disregarded his position that there
was no valid buy-bust operation, because the arresting team had not coordinated the matter
with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). On accused's contention that the
prosecution's failure to present the poseur-buyer weakened the arresting team's testimonies,
the CA held that the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer is fatal only if there is no other
eyewitness to the illicit transaction. Finally, as regards the failure of the police officers to
immediately mark the alleged shabu at the crime scene (but only at the police station), the CA
ruled that "failure to strictly comply with Section 21 (1), Article 11 of RA No. 9165 does not
necessarily render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him
inadmissible."
ISSUE:
Whether or not the RTC and the CA erred in finding the testimonial evidence of the
prosecution witnesses sufficient to warrant appellant's conviction for the crimes charged.
RULING:
Yes. While prior coordination with the PDEA is not necessary to make a buy-bust
operation valid, the Court is constrained to reverse the findings of the CA because the non-
presentation of the poseur-buyer is fatal to the cause of the prosecution. Proof of the
transaction must be credible and complete. In every criminal prosecution, it is the State, and no
other, that bears the burden of proving the illegal sale of the dangerous drug beyond
reasonable doubt. This responsibility imposed on the State accords with the presumption of
innocence in favor of the accused, who has no duty to prove his innocence until and unless
the presumption of innocence in his favor has been overcome by sufficient and competent
evidence. While there is a "need to hide [the poseur-buyers] identities] and preserve their
invaluable service to the police," this consideration cannot be applied to this case, because, as
in Andaya, the "poseur-buyer and the confidential informant were one and the same. Without
the poseur buyer's testimony, the State did not credibly incriminate [the accused]."
When the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two (2) or more
explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other
consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral cetainty and is not
sufficient to support a conviction.

Case of Ampuan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case of Ampuan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case of Ampuan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SANCHEZ, JOHANNALYN M.

G.R. No. 215942

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee

You might also like