Title
Supreme Court
People vs. Fundales Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 184606
Decision Date
Sep 5, 2012
Appellant convicted for illegal shabu sale in a buy-bust operation; SC upheld conviction, citing preserved evidence integrity and presumption of police regularity.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 184606)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Factual Background and Charging
    • On December 8, 2003, appellant Calexto Duque Fundales, Jr. was charged with:
      • Violation of Section 5 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs)
      • Violation of Section 11 (illegal possession of dangerous drugs)
      • Violation of Section 12 in relation to Section 14 (illegal possession of drug paraphernalia) of Article II, RA No. 9165
    • The Informations detailed:
      • In Criminal Case No. 03-1425, the accused was alleged to have sold 0.10 gram of shabu on December 2, 2003, in ParaAaque City.
      • In Criminal Case No. 03-1426, he was alleged to have possessed 0.02 gram of shabu.
      • In Criminal Case No. 03-1427, he was charged together with co-accused for possessing equipment intended for the administration of dangerous drugs.
  • The Buy-Bust Operation (Prosecution’s Version)
    • On the evening of December 2, 2003:
      • The Chief of the Intelligence Unit of the ParaAaque City Police, Police Superintendent Alfredo Valdez, received an information from a confidential informant regarding the Fundales brothers' drug dealing.
      • A buy-bust team was constituted including officers: PO1 Ariel Ilagan, PO1 Cesarie SoquiAa, PO1 Emmanuel Salvaloza, PO3 Regalado Adriatico, and CE Ronald Tangcoy.
    • The operation details:
      • The team proceeded to 008 Jordan Street, Sitio Nazareth, Barangay San Isidro.
      • Around 9:00 p.m., PO1 SoquiAa, designated as the poseur-buyer, along with the informant, went to the appellant’s house.
      • At the house, after introduction by the informant, the appellant handed over five plastic sachets containing a white crystalline substance upon receiving P500.00 marked money from PO1 SoquiAa.
      • PO1 SoquiAa signaled the consummation of the transaction by lighting a cigarette. Backup police then arrived and arrested the appellant along with his co-accused (Jerico, Ricardo, Chulo, and Joel) who were present and engaged in a pot session.
      • The seized items (sachets and drug paraphernalia) were inventoried and subsequently sent for forensic examination, which confirmed the presence of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu).
  • Version of the Defense
    • The appellant testified that:
      • He was at home repairing a washing machine with co-accused Ricardo, Chulo, Joel, and Jerico.
      • At around 4:30 p.m., a group of eight persons wearing civilian clothing and carrying weapons and handcuffs forcibly entered his home.
      • He was detained at the Coastal Police Station for two days thereafter.
    • The defense contended that:
      • There was no clear identification or police presence as the men did not obviously appear as law enforcement officers.
      • The buy-bust operation, as alleged by the prosecution, was fictitious.
  • Trial Court Proceedings and Decisions
    • On March 18, 2006, the RTC rendered its decision:
      • Found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the illegal sale of shabu (Criminal Case No. 03-1425).
      • Dismissed the charges for illegal possession of dangerous drugs (Criminal Case No. 03-1426) and for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia (Criminal Case No. 03-1427) for insufficiency of evidence.
      • Sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment and imposed a fine of P500,000.00.
      • Directed the Clerk of Court and Jail Warden on relevant post-decision actions (transfer to New Bilibid Prisons and release of certain co-accused where applicable).
  • Appellate Proceedings
    • The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision.
    • The appellant raised several issues on appeal, namely:
      • Questioning the sufficiency of evidence proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
      • Challenging the credibility and weight given to prosecution evidence.
      • Asserting that no buy-bust operation occurred.
      • Contesting the presumption of regularity accorded to the official performance of the arresting officers.

Issues:

  • Main Issue
    • Whether the appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of RA No. 9165 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs).
  • Sub-Issues Raised by the Appellant
    • Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused based solely on the evidence presented.
    • Whether undue weight was given to the prosecution’s evidence while the defense was disregarded.
    • Whether there was any mishandling of evidence, particularly regarding the non-presentation of the forensic chemist.
    • Whether the buy-bust operation was legitimately conducted, including the coordination (or lack thereof) with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) and compliance with procedural safeguards under RA No. 9165.

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. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.