MEDINA, TIARA S.

1- Sanchez Roman
June 22, 2019

People of the Philippines Vs. Josh Joe T. Sahibil

G.R. No. 228953

On January 31, 2012, a buy-bust operation was conducted by the operatives of the
CIDG-Tagum on the accused-appellant, Josh Joe T. Sahibil, alias “Wally”, at the Panabo
Overland Transport Terminal. During the transaction, Sahibil sold to SPO 1 Rosil
Ellevera two sachets of crystalized methamphetamine hydrochloride, more commonly
known as shabu. The appellant denied the accusations against him and pleaded “not
guilty”, however, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Panabo City ruled otherwise. The
Court of Appeals affirmed in toto of the RTC Decision. With this, the appellant appealed
before the Supreme Court, insisting that he be acquitted, as the chain of custody rule was
not observed, and that necessary witnesses were not present during the sale and seizure of
the illegal drugs.

However, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, declaring it to be without

merit. The Court explained that the prosecution was able to establish the primordial
requirements, which would prove that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
These requirements are as follows: (1) the identity of the seller and the buyer; (2) the
object and consideration of the sale (corpus delicti); and, (3) the delivery of the thing sold
and the payment therefore. Notwithstanding the contentions of the appellant, the Court
also concluded that the CIDG operatives had fully observed the required chain of custody
of the confiscated illegal drugs. For these reasons, the Supreme Court dismissed the
appeal of the accused-appellant, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals.
 MEDINA, TIARA S.
1- Sanchez Roman
June 22, 2019

Ruel Francis M. Cabral Vs. Chris S. Bracamonte

G.R. No. 233174

On September 15, 2009, Petitioner Ruel Francis Cabral and respondent Chris S.
Bracamonte executed a Memorandum of Agreement in Makati City for the purchase of
shares of stock in Wellcross Freight Corporation (WFC) and Aviver International
Corporation (AVIVER). With this, the respondent also issued a postdated check to Cabral
amounting to P12,677,950.15, however, the drawee bank in Makati City dishonored the
check presented for payment for lack of sufficient funds. As a result, Cabral filed a
complaint for estafa against Bracamonte in Parañaque City. Bracamonte moved to quash
the Information contending that the venue was improperly laid in Parañaque City,
because the postdated check was delivered and dishonored in Makati City. The RTC
denied the Motion to Quash set forth by the respondent, however the CA set aside the
RTC order affirming the contentions of the respondent.

Cabral filed the instant petition for motion of reconsideration as the aggrieved
party on October 9, 2017, alleging that the crime took place independently in different
places. The Supreme Court could not subscribe to the present petition. Furthermore, the
Court cites the case of Treñas v. People, upholding that "in a criminal case, the
prosecution must not only prove that the offense was committed, it must also prove the
identity of the accused and the fact that the offense was committed within the jurisdiction
of the court." For this reason, the Supreme Court denied the motion of reconsideration.
The assailed decision dated March 27, 2017 and the resolution dated July 28, 2017 of the
Court of Appeals were also affirmed.