G.R. No. 205787 - People vs. Arposeple y Sanchez

Accused-appellants Pablo Arposeple y Sanchez and Jhunrel Sulogaol y Datu were charged with three counts under R.A. No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002):

In Criminal Case No. 12852 – violation of Section 5, Article II for allegedly selling dangerous drugs (shabu) for a price of P500.00.
In Criminal Case No. 12853 – violation of Section 11, Article II for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, based on the discovery of empty sachets and suspected shabu residue on Arposeple.
In Criminal Case No. 12854 – violation of Section 12, Article II for possession of drug paraphernalia intended for use in consuming dangerous drugs.

The charges relate to the conduct during a buy-bust operation allegedly occurring on 21 September 2005 in Tagbilaran City, Bohol.

At approximately 3:00 a.m. on 21 September 2005, a briefing was conducted by Police Inspector Jimenez, the Assistant City Drug Enforcement Officer.
The buy-bust team, headed by Jimenez and composed of various police officers (including PO3 Bagotchay, PO3 Brunidor, PO2 Ramos, among others), was instructed regarding the operation.
An informant and a poseur-buyer (Ramos) were designated to trigger the operation by requesting to purchase shabu.

The team proceeded to the designated area near the Monastery of the Holy Spirit in the Ubujan District.
Ramos, acting as the buyer, signaled the transaction by removing his cap once the sale was consummated, which led to the appearance of the police team.
Upon noticing the police’s presence, the appellants attempted to flee in opposite directions, leading to a chase and eventual apprehension.

Arposeple was chased, apprehended inside a house, and subjected to a body search.
A playing card case was recovered on his person containing a transparent cellophane sachet with suspected shabu residue, two empty sachets, a hundred peso bill, pieces of aluminum foil used as tooters, disposable lighters, a bamboo clip, and a half blade.
Sulogaol, after being caught by another officer, was frisked; however, his body search yielded no items.

The seized items were inventoried by PO3 Bagotchay in the presence of the appellants (who refused to sign), barangay kagawads, a DOJ representative, and media personnel.
Later that day, the items were submitted to the Philippine Provincial Crime Laboratory for examination, with the forensic officer De Guzman marking and testing specimens which mostly tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Drug/urine tests on both appellants were also conducted and yielded positive results for methamphetamine hydrochloride.

Asserted that the entire buy-bust operation was executed in accordance with police procedures and that the testimonies of multiple police officers established the identity of the accused, the nature of the transaction, and the chain of evidence from seizure to laboratory analysis.
Emphasized that though some procedural lapses such as an incomplete chain of custody were present, the overall evidence was sufficient to prove the crime beyond reasonable doubt.

Presented testimonies from witnesses including Myra Tara, Joan Cortes Bohol, and the accused themselves, contending that the events occurred quite differently.
Claimed that the accused initially visited Tara’s residence to borrow money, later to play cards, and were then forcibly apprehended following an abrupt entry by men claiming to be policemen.
Asserted that the evidence, notably the extractions and inventory conducted, were tainted by irregularities and that there was planting of evidence by police officers, including discrepancies in how and when items were marked or handled.

Significant lapses were noted in the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs and paraphernalia, particularly in the period between the inventory conducted outside Tara’s residence and the submission/marking of the evidence at the laboratory.
There was uncertainty regarding who marked the evidence, when it was marked, and whether the items presented in court were indeed those seized during the buy-bust operation.

The law requires a prompt physical inventory and photographic recording of seized items in the presence of multiple witnesses.
The prosecution failed to demonstrate that such evidentiary protocols were fully observed, thereby compromising the integrity and admissibility of the evidence.

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellants given that the prosecution failed to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, all essential elements of the crimes charged.
Whether the lapses in the chain of custody and the failure to strictly comply with the evidentiary requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 (including marking and photographing seized items) rendered the evidence inadmissible or unreliable.
Whether the presumption of regularity in the performance of police duties should prevail despite significant procedural irregularities that affected the integrity of the corpus delicti.