Case Digest (G.R. No. 187047) 
  Facts:
In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Manuel Cruz y Cruz, decided on June 15, 2011 (G.R. No. 187047), the accused-appellant Manuel Cruz y Cruz was charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for illegal sale and possession of 1.53 grams and 1.42 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), respectively. The charges stemmed from a buy-bust operation conducted on February 23, 2005, in Sitio de Asis, Barangay San Martin de Porres, Parañaque City. The police operatives, upon a tip from a male informant, planned and executed a buy-bust operation where PO2 Nemesio Gallano acted as the poseur-buyer and PO2 Darwin Boiser as immediate back-up. The appellant, alias Maning, allegedly sold the marked buy-bust money amounting to P2,000.00 in exchange for one sachet of shabu.
Upon arrest, two sachets of white crystalline substance were recovered from appellant and later subjected to laboratory examinat
Case Digest (G.R. No. 187047)
Facts:
- Charges and Initial Proceedings
- Manuel Cruz y Cruz (appellant) was charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) in two separate Informations dated 24 February 2005.
- Criminal Case No. 05-0254 charged him with illegal sale of 1.53 grams of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).
- Criminal Case No. 05-0255 charged him with illegal possession of 1.42 grams of shabu.
- Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges, and the pre-trial conference was terminated by agreement.
- Prosecution’s Case
- Police Officers Nemesio Gallano (poseur-buyer) and Darwin Boiser (back-up) of the District Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Team (DAID-SOT) conducted a buy-bust operation against appellant.
- A male informant reported that alias “Maning” was selling illegal drugs in Parañaque City; this information was verified by PO2 Gallano through inquiries with residents who confirmed it.
- The buy-bust team was composed of PO2 Gallano as poseur-buyer, PO2 Boiser as back-up, and other operatives as perimeter security. Buy-bust money totaling P2,000.00, in four P500.00 bills marked with the initials “JG,” was given to PO2 Gallano.
- The team proceeded to the target area; the male informant introduced PO2 Gallano to appellant (alias Maning) as a security guard seeking shabu for personal use.
- After negotiation, appellant took the marked money and gave one sachet containing white crystalline substance to PO2 Gallano.
- PO2 Gallano gave a missed call to PO2 Boiser as a pre-arranged signal. The police arrested appellant immediately and recovered another sachet from his possession.
- The two sachets and the marked money were marked and submitted for laboratory examination.
- Chemistry Report No. D-143-05 confirmed the substances to be methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).
- Defense’s Case
- Appellant denied the charges, claiming he was working as a dispatcher on the day of the charges and was at home when police officers arrested him without explanation.
- He alleged that police officers handcuffed and forcibly brought him to their station and detained him without cause.
- He denied selling or possessing shabu and claimed the evidence was planted to extort money from him.
- Trial Court Decision and Appeal
- The RTC convicted appellant of illegal sale of shabu (Criminal Case No. 05-0254), imposing life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00.
- Criminal Case No. 05-0255 (possession) was dismissed, considering the amount of shabu as part and parcel of the illegal sale.
- Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals, raising grounds that his warrantless arrest was illegal and the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in toto.
Issues:
- Whether the warrantless arrest of appellant was lawful given the circumstances.
- Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for illegal sale of shabu.
- Whether the alleged planting of evidence and failure to record the marked money in police blotter affect the admissibility of evidence and the validity of the prosecution’s case.
- Whether the dismissal of possession charge is proper considering the quantity of drugs involved.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)