Title
People vs. Collado y Cuan
Case
G.R. No. 185719
Decision Date
Jun 17, 2013
Appellants charged under RA 9165 for drug-related offenses; convictions upheld for some, acquitted others due to lack of evidence. Warrantless arrest, chain of custody deemed lawful.

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)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.