Case Digest (G.R. No. 185719)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Marcelino Collado y Cunanan, et al., G.R. No. 185719, June 17, 2013, Supreme Court Second Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff-appellee is the People of the Philippines; the accused-appellants include Marcelino Collado y Cunanan (Marcelino), Myra Collado y Senica (Myra), Mark Cipriano y Rocero (Cipriano), Samuel Sherwin Latario y Enrique (Latario), and Reynaldo Ranada y Alas (Ranada), among others.On October 9, 2004, a police buy-bust operation led by PO2 Richard N. Noble, with SPO2 Bernardo Cruz and others under P/Insp. Earl B. Castillo, resulted in the arrest of the above-named persons at Marcelino and Myra’s residence in Pasig City. Marcelino and Myra were charged with sale of dangerous drugs (Section 5, Article II, RA No. 9165) and maintenance of a den (Section 6) in Criminal Cases Nos. 13781-D and 13782-D; Marcelino was further charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs (Section 11) in Criminal Case No. 13783-D. Cipriano, Latario, Ranada and several co-accused were charged with possession of drug paraphernalia (Section 14) in Criminal Case No. 13784-D. Chemistry reports returned positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride for seized specimens and for drugs-use testing on some arrestees.
At trial the prosecution relied on testimonies of the buy-bust operatives (PO2 Noble and SPO2 Cruz), documentary exhibits including the chemistry report and the pre-operation report, and the police inventory/listing of seized items. The defense witnesses (Marcelino, Myra and Ranada) denied the criminal acts, alleged irregular arrest and detention, claimed attempted extortion by PO2 Noble at the station, and advanced a theory that a personal dispute with a certain “Rey” motivated the operation; they also alleged that some arrestees drank a bitter-tasting water at the station and later tested positive.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 154, Pasig City, in a December 7, 2005 decision convicted Marcelino and Myra for sale (Section 5) and Marcelino for possession (Section 11), acquitted them on the maintenance charge (Section 6), and convicted several others for possession of paraphernalia (Section 14), imposing respective imprisonment terms and fines; some accused applied for probation. Marcelino, Myra, Cipriano, Latario and Ranada appealed.
The Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02626 issued a February 28, 2008 decision affirming with modification the RTC: it affirmed convictions of Marcelino and Myra for sale...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the warrantless arrest and the subsequent search and seizure of the appellants lawful under applicable rules on warrantless arrest and search incidental to arrest?
- Did the appellants sufficiently prove allegations of extortion and frame-up to rebut the presumption of regularity in the performance of police duties?
- Did the prosecution observe the chain-of-custody and inventory/photographing requirements of Section 21, Article II, RA No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules (Section 21(a) IRR), such that the seized items remained admissible?
- Were Cipriano, Latario, and the other co-accused properly convicted under Section 14, Article II, RA No. 9165 for ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)