G.R. No. 231130 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. GERALD TAMAYO CORDOVA AND MARCIAL DAYON EGUISO, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, as well as ordered him to pay a fine of P500,000.00. It also found Cordova and Eguiso guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, and accordingly, sentenced them each to suffer the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years, as maximum, as well as to each pay P300,000.00 as fine. [21] The RTC ruled that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs as one (1) sachet of shabu was sold during the buy-bust operation. PO3 Sebastian positively identified and narrated in detail how Cordova handed the sachet of shabu to him, which was presented and duly identified in court. Moreover, the elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs were also established as five (5) heat-sealed plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance were recovered from the person of Cordova, while one (1) elongated plastic sachet was recovered from the person of Eguiso. [22] On the other hand, the RTC did not give merit to Cordova and Eguiso's defense of denial and frame-up for being unsubstantiated. It also found sufficient the explanation with respect to the examination of the drugs after the 24 hour mandatory period. [23] Aggrieved, accused-appellants appealed [24] to the CA. Pending appeal, Eguiso applied for and was granted bail. [25] The CA Ruling In a Decision [26] dated November 8, 2016, the CA affirmed the RTC's ruling. [27] It held that the prosecution, through the testimony of PO3 Sebastian, was able to prove that Cordova committed the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs. It also ruled that Cordova and Eguiso's unlawful possession of the sachets of shabu has been duly established. [28] Anent the custody of the seized items, the CA held that the absence of the representatives from the media and the DOJ are not fatal because the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were properly preserved, in accord with the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165. On this score, the CA noted that there was an unbroken chain of custody despite the request for examination being made on April 8, 2005 and the drugs being forwarded on April 11, 2005 three days after. [29] Hence, this appeal. The Issue Before the Court The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA correctly upheld accused-appellants' conviction for the crimes charged. The Court's Ruling The appeal is meritorious. At the outset, it must be stressed that an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review and, thus, it is the duty of the reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned. [30] "The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the p