G.R. No. 193854 - People vs. Dulay y Pascual

Two separate Informations were filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 123, Caloocan City:

Criminal Case No. C-73028 for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia (Section 12, Article II, R.A. No. 9165).
Criminal Case No. C-73029 for illegal use of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) (Section 15, Article II, R.A. No. 9165).

Co-accused Bernie Castro and Kaycee Mendoza pleaded guilty to both charges and were meted penalties accordingly.
Petitioner Margarita Ambre y Cayuni pleaded not guilty.

On April 20, 2005, Caloocan City police conducted a buy-bust operation based on an informant’s tip about the sale of dangerous drugs by Abdulah Sultan and Ina Aderp in a residential compound.
The operation led to the arrest of Aderp and Moctar Tagoranao; Sultan fled and was chased into his house. Inside, police officers found Ambre, Castro, and Mendoza allegedly engaged in a “pot session.”
Items seized from the three included an unsealed sachet and aluminum foil strips with white crystalline substance and two disposable lighters; urine samples were taken from Ambre and her co-accused.
Laboratory tests (Physical Science Reports DT-041-05 to DT-043-05 and D-149-05) confirmed the presence of shabu in the urine samples and on the seized items.

Ambre, Mendoza, and witness Lily Rosete testified that Ambre was in the compound to buy malong and was arrested without being observed using shabu. They denied any pot session.
On September 1, 2008, the RTC:

Acquitted Ambre of illegal possession of paraphernalia (Crim. Case No. C-73028) for lack of proof.
Convicted her of illegal use of shabu (Crim. Case No. C-73029) and sentenced her to six months’ rehabilitation at a government center.
Ordered confiscation of the shabu and imposed costs on the accused.

Whether the warrantless arrest and search on April 20, 2005 conformed to legal procedures for a buy-bust operation.
Whether the arrest and search were fruits of a “poisonous tree,” rendering the seized evidence inadmissible.
Whether exclusion of co-accused Mendoza’s testimony violated the rule on inter alios acts (Section 26, Rule 130, Rules of Court).
Whether the six-month rehabilitation penalty is null for lack of a confirmatory drug test as required by R.A. 9165.