Case Digest (G.R. No. 187157)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Arnel Clarite y Salazar, G.R. No. 187157, February 15, 2012, Supreme Court First Division, Leonardo-De Castro, J., writing for the Court. The criminal prosecution arose from an amended information dated July 25, 2002 charging Arnel Clarite y Salazar (accused-appellant) with the sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The complaint alleged that on July 11, 2002 in Naga City the accused sold four plastic sachets containing shabu (weighing 45.8712 g) to an NBI poseur-buyer in exchange for marked boodle money worth P50,000.The prosecution presented NBI special investigators Alfredo Romano, Jr., Felipe Jessie Jimenez and Rommel Dizon, and witnesses P/Insp. Josephine Clemen and informant Alejandro Cedeno. Their testimony described a planned buy-bust: Cedeno negotiated with the accused, Romano and team prepared counterfeit “budol” money dusted with fluorescent powder, and the meeting occurred at the Central Business District terminal in Naga City on July 11, 2002. Romano testified that the accused produced the sachets and accepted the money; Romano signaled his companions and they arrested the accused. A paraffin/UV check at the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory allegedly showed fluorescent powder on the accused’s hands and the sachets tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The accused testified in his own defense, denying the buy-bust narrative and asserting instead that he was a courier sent by his employer on July 10 to deliver 100 grams of shabu to a certain “Ching Lo” and that NBI officers forcibly apprehended, blindfolded and extorted him. He admitted previous deliveries but insisted he was seized while riding a tricycle en route to the Civic Center, not during a sale.
On March 18, 2004, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Naga City, convicted the accused and imposed life imprisonment. The RTC credited the prosecution’s witnesses and found the elements of illegal sale established. On May 9, 2008, the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00932 affirmed the RTC decision but modified the penalty to add a P500,000 fine. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court c...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Are the trial court’s factual findings, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, binding on the Supreme Court and therefore immune from disturbance in this appeal?
- Was the arrest and search of accused-appellant unlawful because he was not caught in flagrante delicto, rendering the evidence inadmissible?
- Does noncoordination with the PDEA under Section 86 of R.A. No. 9165 render the arrest and evidence inadmissible?
- Should the penalty imposed include a fine und...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)