People v. Fermin

People v. Edgardo Fermin y Gregorio & Job Madayag, Jr.
, y Balderas
G.R. No. 179344
August 3, 2011
Prosecution’s version of the facts:
At around 9 a.m. of 9 July 2003, a police informant went to La Loma Police Station in Quezon
City and reported that 2 male persons are engaged in illegal sale of drugs at No. 93 Iba St.,
Brgy. San Isidro, Quezon City.
Acting upon the report, Station Chief Police Senior Inspector Villanueva created a team to
conduct a buy-bust operation. PO2 Ibasco will act as the poseur-buyer. Senior Inspector
Villanueva gave PO2 Ibasco a hundred peso bill for use as marked money. PO2 Ibasco, in turn,
put his initial "EI" on the bill.
At around 11 a.m, the buy-bust team, together with Senior Inspector Villanueva and the
confidential informant, went to the target area of operation on board a Tamaraw FX. PO2 Ibasco
and the informant proceeded to the area where they saw Madayag, Jr., in front of the house.
The informant then introduced Ibasco to Madayag, Jr. as a drug-dependent who wanted to buy
drugs. PO2 Ibasco paid in the 100-peso marked money. Madayag, Jr. then called another
person. Fermin, came out and gave 3 plastic sachets. Madayag told the poseur-buyer that he
should choose 1 out of the 3 to be sure of a good deal so that he’d be a regular.
Ibasco took the sachet and was convinced that the content was shabu. He made the pre-
arranged signal of scratching his head in order to alert the other members of the buy-bust team.
The members then immediately rushed to the location and introduced themselves as police.
Fermin and Madayag were arrested. One recovered the money and the sachet while another
officer recovered a knife from Madayag. PO2 Ibasco added that the sachet which was the
subject of the sale was marked “EI-JM” while the rest were in the custody of another officer.
Pascua also frisked Fermin and recovered another plastic sachet and a 0.38 paltik revolver.
Pascua contradicted himself when he said that the plastic sachets were in his possession
whereas earlier, he said that the objects were in Ibasco’s hands.
Ibasco positively identified the marked money. Pascua admitted putting his initials “RP-EF” on
the plastic sachets and on the revolver. The sachets were confirmed to be shabu.
The defense presented their version as follows:
Madayag was buying some cigarettes from a nearby store. He noticed that 8 armed male
persons wearing civilian clothes were in front of his house. He approached them to ask what
they were looking for. However, instead of answering, 2 of the police officers, one identified as
drew their firearms and poked them at his head. One of them then pulled the accused inside the
house and made him lie down on the cement floor of the veranda.
The police officers entered the house and brought the sleeping Fermin and his mother to the
veranda as well. Fermin was also forced to lie down by the police officers. PO1 Valencia
recovered a cigarette lighter from Madayag, which the police described as, “eto ang gamit mo
sa shabu.” The three were detained.
Fermin, the other accused, said his mother was later released because she paid the police
officers the amount of ₱11,000. He added that they remained in detention because they could
not produce the additional demanded amount of ₱14,000.
Fermin corroborated the testimony of Madayag, Jr. in court. He was ordered to lie down by
Valencia. He denied that a gun was taken from him or that he was called by Madayag, Jr. He
further denied having given 3 plastic sachets to Madayag, Jr. or that he was frisked by the
police for plastic sachets and money.
The CA affirmed the conviction, saying that the testimonies of Ibasco and Pascua were
straightforward and candid. It also found no motive on the part of the police officers to frame up
both of the accused. Finally, the inconsistencies, contradictions, and self-contradictions in their
testimony did not pertain to the actual buy-bust itself but only to peripheral matters.
Issue: W/N Madayag and Fermin are guilty – NO; ACQUITTED
Held: The defense’s main argument is whether or not there was really a buy-bust operation on
9 July 2003. In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following must be proven:
1. that the transaction or sale took place;
2. that the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and
3. that the buyer and seller were identified.
What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the
presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug. The presentation in court of the corpus
delicti establishes the fact that a crime has actually been committed.
There were irreconcilable conflicts in the story of the buy-bust itself. Ibasco stated that after the
transaction, Pascua arrested Fermin and recovered the money and the two plastic sachets.
Valencia was the one who arrested Madayag, Jr. and recovered a balisong. Ibasco said he had
possession of the sachets. Pascua, on the other hand, said that Ibasco arrested Madayag while
he recovered the gun and sachets.
Another contradiction: the coordination was made with the PDEA. However, as per Certification
of PDEA dated 26 July 2003, none was made. This was viewed by the trial court as an
administrative matter and not an element of a valid entrapment. Evident too is the attempt to
project regularity in the buy-bust operation by the disputed testimony on coordination.
Finally, PO2 Ibasco testified that the sachet which is the subject of the illegal sale remained in
his possession and was subsequently marked as EI-JM. However, Pascua, contradicted this
statement when he testified on 19 April 2004 that the sachet was in his possession.
As provided by the implementing rules and jurisprudence, strict compliance of the chain of
custody can be disregarded as long as the evidentiary value and integrity of the illegal drug are
properly preserved; and its preservation can be well established if the chain of custody of illegal
drug was unbroken. The break is clear in this case.
It must be noted that the police officer who had the initial custody and control of the illegal drug
was not clearly identified. The contradicting testimonies of the police attest to this. The inventory
was made at the office but there was no photographing of the evidence. The prosecution failed
to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the two accused.

People v. Fermin

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

People v. Fermin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Edgardo Fermin y Gregorio & Job Madayag, Jr.

Prosecution’s version of the facts:

The defense presented their version as follows:

Issue: W/N Madayag and Fermin are guilty – NO; ACQUITTED

You might also like