G.R. No. 210302 - Integrated Micro Electronics, Inc. vs. Standard Insurance Co., Inc.

Appellant Herminio Buenaventura y Recto was charged in two separate informations before the RTC of Mandaluyong for violating Republic Act No. 6425 (the Dangerous Drugs Act).
The first information accused him of selling one brick of marijuana to a poseur buyer identified as P/Insp. Roberto Palisoc, Jr. for the amount of P2,400, involving a specific brick weighing 879.488 grams.
The second information charged him with the illegal possession of nine additional bricks of marijuana totaling 7,877.858 grams.

Authorities received a tip from an informant that a person known as “Demet” (later identified as Herminio Buenaventura y Recto) was engaged in selling marijuana in the Malate area.
Surveillance was conducted on April 7, 2002, by SPO2 Charlie Manzano and PO1 Christopher Rivera under the direction of P/Insp. Roberto Palisoc, the Chief of the Station Drug Enforcement Unit of the Malate Police.
On April 11, 2002, the officers confirmed the identity of the suspect through the informant’s identification, prompting the scheduling of a buy-bust operation for April 13, 2002.

Two coordinated teams prepared marked money totaling P2,400 (composed of marked P500 and P100 bills) intended as payment for the marijuana brick.
The teams coordinated with the local Mandaluyong Police and proceeded to the suspect’s residence at 270 Daang Bakal Street, Mandaluyong City.
Upon arriving at the location, P/Insp. Palisoc, accompanied by the informant, approached the appellant who was present near the house after being identified by the informant.
Inside the house, following the appellant’s invitation, a transaction occurred whereby the appellant accepted payment and produced one brick of marijuana from a black traveling bag.
P/Insp. Palisoc verified the drug by sniffing and examining its texture; he then signaled his team via his cellular phone and identified himself as a police officer before effecting the arrest.

Subsequent to the arrest, the other team members secured the appellant’s residence, where a thorough search recovered the black traveling bag containing a total of ten bricks of suspected marijuana.
The recovered drugs were sent for laboratory examination by Forensic Chemist Judycel A. Macapagal. The lab report confirmed that the specimens (bricks A through J) tested positive for marijuana and provided detailed weight and marking information.
Evidence also included the marked P2,400 recovered from the appellant’s person.

The defense presented an alternative narrative, alleging that the identification of the appellant was based on bystander indication after two men from a van inquired about “Demet Buenaventura.”
It was asserted that the arrest was made without proper warrant, that the police forces operated outside their territorial jurisdiction without adequate coordination, and that the required inventory and photographic documentation (as later prescribed by R.A. 9165) were not observed.
The appellant further claimed that he was not informed of his constitutional rights at the time of arrest and contended that the drugs were planted.

By a decision rendered on June 10, 2004, the RTC of Mandaluyong found the appellant guilty of both selling and possessing marijuana, relying primarily on the straightforward and corroborated testimonies of the police officers.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, noting that the appellant had waived his objections by not moving for the quashal of the information and by participating in the trial (entering a counsel-assisted plea and presenting his version during proceedings).
The appellate court also upheld the validity of the warrantless arrest, finding that the buy-bust operation had been lawfully executed, and that the procedures followed did not contravene any applicable law given the timing relative to the enactment of R.A. 9165.

Whether the court erred in convicting the appellant of illegal sale and illegal possession of marijuana under R.A. 6425.

Whether the elements of illegal sale – namely, the sale, delivery, identification of the buyer, and acknowledgment by the appellant – were satisfactorily proven by the evidence.
Whether the evidence established the appellant’s constructive and actual possession of the marijuana found at his residence.

Whether the warrantless arrest conducted during the buy-bust operation was lawful, particularly given that the arrest was made outside the immediate jurisdiction of the apprehending officers yet coordinated with local police.
Whether the failure to comply with later procedural requirements (e.g., physical inventory and photographic documentation in the presence of the accused as mandated by R.A. 9165) affects the admissibility of the evidence, considering that the operation took place before the effectivity of said law.
Whether the appellant’s conduct during the proceedings amounted to a waiver of his constitutional rights regarding the manner of arrest and the subsequent search.

Whether the allegation that the drugs were planted can be entertained absent clear and convincing evidence demonstrating an abuse of power or irregular performance of official duty by the arresting officers.