Case Digest (G.R. No. 185719) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
This case involves appellants Marcelino Collado y Cunanan, Myra Collado y Senica, Mark Cipriano y Rocero, Samuel Sherwin Latario y Enrique, and Reynaldo Ranada y Alas, who were charged for violations of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) arising from a buy-bust operation conducted by police officers in Pasig City on October 9, 2004. Marcelino and Myra Collado were charged with sale of dangerous drugs (Section 5) and maintenance of a den (Section 6) under RA 9165. Marcelino was additionally charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs (Section 11). Cipriano, Latario, Ranada, and some other co-accused were charged with possession of drug paraphernalia (Section 14). The prosecution’s case was anchored on testimonies of police officers involved in the buy-bust operation, who arrested the appellants at the scene after purchasing dangerous drugs from Marcelino and confiscating drug paraphernalia from the premises. The seized items tested positive
Case Digest (G.R. No. 185719) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Charges
- Appellants Marcelino Collado and Myra Collado were charged with:
- Sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 (Criminal Case No. 13781-D)
- Maintenance of a den, dive or resort under Section 6, Article II of RA 9165 (Criminal Case No. 13782-D)
- Marcelino Collado was also charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 (Criminal Case No. 13783-D).
- Appellants Mark Cipriano, Samuel Sherwin Latario, Reynaldo Ranada, along with other co-accused, were charged with possession of drug paraphernalia under Section 14, Article II of RA 9165 (Criminal Case No. 13784-D).
- Factual Background of Buy-Bust Operation
- On October 9, 2004, PO2 Richard Noble received information from a civilian asset that Marcelino and Myra Collado were selling shabu and maintaining a drug den at their residence in Pasig City.
- A surveillance operation was conducted, followed by coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA).
- A buy-bust operation was executed where PO2 Noble acted as poseur buyer and bought shabu from Marcelino.
- Upon giving the pre-arranged signal, police backup arrested Marcelino, Myra, and others found inside the house including Cipriano, Latario, Ranada, and other co-accused.
- Confidential drug paraphernalia and shabu were seized from the premises and individuals. Several items tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride (“shabu”).
- Certain accused, including Marcelino, Apelo, Cipriano, and Ranada, tested positive for drug use, while others tested negative.
- Statements of the Defendants
- Defendants denied the charges, claiming Marcelino and Myra operated an appliance repair shop and denied selling or possessing drugs.
- They alleged they were surprised by armed men who arrested them without evidence.
- Marcelino alleged extortion by PO2 Noble demanding money to drop charges and suggested malice from a previous dispute with a retired policeman named “Rey.”
- The defense claimed the drug tests were tampered with as some were forced to drink a bitter-tasting liquid.
- Trial Court Decision
- The RTC found Marcelino and Myra guilty of sale of dangerous drugs (Crim. Case No. 13781-D) and sentenced them to life imprisonment and fines.
- Marcelino was found guilty of illegal possession of dangerous drugs (Crim. Case No. 13783-D) and sentenced to 12 years and 1 day to 15 years imprisonment plus a fine.
- The RTC acquitted Marcelino and Myra of maintaining a den (Crim. Case No. 13782-D).
- In Crim. Case No. 13784-D, all accused charged with possession of drug paraphernalia were found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment and fine.
- Court of Appeals Decision
- The CA affirmed the RTC’s conviction of Marcelino and Myra for sale of drugs and Marcelino for illegal possession of drugs.
- Appellant Ranada’s conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia was affirmed.
- The CA modified the RTC ruling by holding Cipriano, Latario and other co-accused as accessories, not principals, in the possession of drug paraphernalia cases, imposing lighter penalties.
- The CA considered the warrantless arrest lawful and rejected claims of irregularities in arrest and seizure procedures.
- Issues on Appeal to the Supreme Court
- Appellants challenged the validity of their warrantless arrest, alleging non-compliance with RA 9165 procedural requirements and unreasonable search and seizure.
- They also alleged extortion by PO2 Noble.
- The procedure for handling seized drugs and the integrity of chain of custody were questioned.
- Appellants disputed their guilt due to supposed procedural and evidentiary lapses.
Issues:
- Whether the warrantless arrest of the appellants was lawful under Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Court.
- Whether the search and seizure conducted incident to the warrantless arrest were lawful and reasonable.
- Whether the police officers committed extortion or had improper motives, thus undermining the credibility of the buy-bust operation.
- Whether the requirements for the chain of custody under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 were violated, affecting the integrity and admissibility of the seized drugs and paraphernalia.
- Whether appellants Mark Cipriano, Samuel Sherwin Latario, and other co-accused are criminally liable for possession of drug paraphernalia as principals or accessories, and if the CA erred in modifying their liability.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)