G.R. No. L-33850 - Manalo vs. Mariano

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-33850)
Advanced

Facts:

Parties, charges, and automatic review
The case reached the Supreme Court for automatic review of the Regional Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna, Branch 36 judgment dated November 23, 2000 in Criminal Case No. 6014-98-C.
The RTC found accused-appellants Vilma Almendras y Zapata (alias Apple) and Arsenio Almendras y Locsin (a.k.a. Scout) guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sec. 15, Title III of Republic Act 6425 as amended by Republic Act 7659, and sentenced both appellants to death.
The RTC ordered each accused to pay a fine of two million pesos.
The Supreme Court identified the appellants’ conviction and sentence as reviewable because the defense counsel of record did not appear for promulgation, and appellants were assisted by counsel de oficio.

Arrest, buy-bust operation, and filing of the information
Appellants were described as residents of Sta. Ana, Manila.
Appellants were arrested by operatives of the Philippine National Police Narcotics Command (PNP NARCOM) in Calamba, Laguna following a buy-bust operation on June 19, 1998.
The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Laguna filed an information dated August 4, 1998 charging appellants with violating Sec. 21 (b) in relation to Sec. 15, Art. III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Republic Act No. 7925.
The information alleged that on or about June 19, 1998 at Brgy. Pansol, Municipality of Calamba, Province of Laguna, and within the court’s jurisdiction, appellants—without authority of law, conspiring and confederating and mutually helping—wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously sold and delivered Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) weighing one (1) kilogram to a poseur buyer for Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) and the rest in boodle money arranged into bundles to make it appear as real and genuine payment of ONE MILLION PESOS (P1,000,000.00), as full payment.
Appellants were arraigned with assistance of defense counsel Atty. Rodolfo Jimenez and pleaded not guilty.

Pre-trial admissions and agreed issues
At pre-trial, the defense admitted:

Appellants were not residents of Calamba, Laguna.
They were the same persons charged in the information.
They were arrested at 4:00 a.m. of June 19, 1998 at Pansol, Calamba, Laguna.
There were two photos of a Mercedes Benz car where the supposed shabu weighing 990.97 grams was supposedly found.
The existence of documentary items in the record, subject to cross-examination, including:

a Police Arrest Investigation Report,
photocopies of alleged buy-bust money,
Receipt of Items Confiscated,
Request for Laboratory Examination,
Examination Report.

There was only one laboratory qualitative examination conducted on the alleged shabu, with the result contained in a report marked Exhibit F for the prosecution and Exhibit 1 for the defense.

The parties agreed to limit trial issues to:

Whether there was a buy-bust operation.
Whether the alleged prohibited drugs were found inside the car of the accused.
Whether the quantity of the alleged prohibited drugs was 990.97 grams.

Prosecution evidence establishing the buy-bust and seizure
The prosecution’s version began with a tip received by PNP NARCOM, Region IV at Camp Vicente Lim in Calamba, Laguna, at around 5:00 p.m. of June 18, 1998.
The tip reported that a supplier of shabu arrived from Manila and sought a buyer.
The police set the operation for the following morning, based on the reported quantity of drug of one kilo with a street price of one million pesos (P1,000,000).
P/Supt. Emelito T. Sarmiento, Chief of PNP NARCOM Region IV, instructed his men to organize a team.
P/Insp. Mauricio M. Cadano headed the team.
SPO3 Rico Atienza was designated as the poseur-buyer.
The police informer called a person on his mobile phone described as Apple, to arrange a meeting between three oclock to six oclock in the morning at the Mountain View Resort Restaurant in Pansol, Calamba, Laguna.
The team prepared marked money consisting of ten P1,000 bills.
The team also prepared bundles of boodle money to simulate that SPO3 Atienza had one million pesos.
The marked bills were placed on top of each bundle.
Early in the morning of June 19, 1998, the operatives and the informer proceeded to the resort on two vehicles.
At the resort:

SPO3 Atienza parked in the resort parking area.
The other team members acted as a blocking force outside the gate.
SPO3 Atienza and the informer entered the restaurant, ordered coffee, and after a few seconds the informer approached a couple seated at a nearby table and spoke to the woman.
The informer introduced SPO3 Atienza to the woman who identified herself as Apple.

Appellant Apple asked whether SPO3 Atienza had the money for the drug.
SPO3 Atienza stated that the money was in his vehicle.
Apple introduced her male companion as Scout.
All four went to the parking lot.
SPO3 Atienza took out a bag, showed the buy-bust money to Apple and Scout.
Scout went to his vehicle, opened its trunk, and pulled out a black box.
Scout showed the box’s contents: white crystalline powder wrapped in a transparent plastic bag to SPO3 Atienza.
SPO3 Atienza handed over the bag with the marked money to Apple and received the black box.
After the exchange, SPO3 Atienza gave the pre-arranged signal.
The backup team approached, introduced themselves as NARCOM agents, and arrested Apple and Scout.
The marked money was recovered from Apple.
The suspected shabu was turned over to P/Insp. Cadano.
The police brought the suspects to Camp Vicente Lim for further investigation.
Interrogation established that Apple was Vilma Almendras y Zapata and Scout was her husband Arsenio Almendras y Locsin.
The confiscated bag containing the white substance was turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory, Region IV.
Forensic chemist P/Insp. Lorna R. Tria tested the substance and found it positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).
The quantity of seized drug was stated to be 990.97 grams.

Defense evidence posture: demurrer, chain of custody concerns, and sampling issue
On May 6, 1999, the prosecution rested.
Defense evidence reception was set for May 12, 13, and 17, 1999.
On May 10, 1999, defense counsel filed a Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Demurrer to Evidence and admitted demurrer with alternative prayer for bail.
The demurrer argued:

the prosecution failed to establish the element of lack of authority to sell and deliver shabu; and
the prosecution failed to present concrete evidence establishing that the substance tested by the PNP Crime Laboratory was the same substance seized from appellants.

The trial court cancelled scheduled hearings and reset settings to June 8, 14, and 21, 1999.
On June 8, 1999, the trial court denied the demurrer.
The trial court ruled that for a sale of an illegal drug, what was material was proof that the transaction took place.
The trial court stated that both the marked money and the shabu were presented in open court.
The trial court further relied on the testimony identifications, stating that the poseur buyer, police investigator, and forensic chemist identified in court the shabu taken from the Almendras spouses and placed initials on the bag, thus establishing identity of the drug.
The trial court also denied bail, reasoning that 990.97 grams corresponded to an imposable penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, making the offense non-bailable.
After denial, defense counsel manifested on June 21, 1999 an intention to seek review of the denial from the Supreme Court, and defense evidence reception was reset to ...(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

Supreme Court E-Library

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-33850)
Concise Detailed

Facts:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-33850)
Advanced

Facts:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-33850) Concise Detailed

Facts:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-33850) Advanced

Facts:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-33850)
Concise Detailed

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-33850)
Advanced