G.R. No. 208015 - People vs. Lafaran y Aclan

Case Digest (G.R. No. 208015)
Advanced

Facts:

Identity of the parties and the charge

Accused-appellant Ronwaldo Lafaran y Aclan was charged in an Information dated 25 June 2006 for violation of Sec. 5, first paragraph, Art. II of R. A. No. 9165 for selling, delivering, disposing, or giving away 0.02 gram/s of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride locally known as “shabu,” contained in one (1) plastic sachet/s, to a police/informer-poseur buyer, without authority of law.
The Information alleged that the acts occurred on or about 25 June 2006 at about 12:30 o’clock in the afternoon at Esteban Mayo St., Barangay 4, Lipa City, within the jurisdiction of the court.

Pre-trial and trial conduct

Upon arraignment, accused-appellant, assisted by counsel de oficio, pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution presented the testimonies of SPO2 Whency Aro and PO3 Cleofe Pera.
The RTC record showed that the defense did not dispute the genuineness and due execution of the chemistry report, but qualified that the specimen subject of the forensic examination did not come from accused-appellant; the defense also made stipulations and admissions that dispensed with some police testimony.

Buy-bust operation and testimonies establishing the transaction

Pre-operation and planning

The RTC summarized that before June 23, 2006, SPO3 Danilo Yema received reports from barangay officials that accused-appellant was selling shabu.
SPO3 Yema asked his asset to confirm the information by monitoring accused-appellant’s activities.
The asset confirmed the report as positive.
On June 23, 2006 at about 12:00 noon, the police planned and conducted a buy-bust operation using their asset as poseur-buyer.
The buy-bust team consisted of SPO3 Danilo Yema (team leader), SPO2 Whency Aro, and PO3 Cleofe Pera.
PO3 Pera prepared the Pre-operation Report (Exhibit “D”) and sent it to PDEA through fax.
The team conducted a briefing at the police station.
The asset was given five (5) pieces 100-peso bills marked by PO3 Pera with her initials “CEP” bearing the serial numbers:

XJ540900 (Exhibit “1”)
DN261366 (Exhibit “1-2”)
QE654584 (Exhibit “1-3”)
MN604255 (Exhibit “1-4”)
QQ360311 (Exhibit “1-5”)

The buy-bust operation was entered into the police blotter.

Act of exchange

The team and the asset left at around 12:00 noon aboard the tinted car of SPO3 Danilo Yema.
Before reaching the target place, the asset alighted and walked to the agreed meeting place.
The officers parked about ten (10) meters away so they could see the asset and accused-appellant.
The asset met accused-appellant near a cellphone repair shop and store.
The officers witnessed them talk and then witnessed the exchange.
The asset gave the marked money to accused-appellant.
After accepting the money, accused-appellant drew something from his pocket and handed it to the asset.
The item handed to the asset turned out to be one (1) small plastic sachet containing suspected shabu.

Signal and immediate apprehension

The asset executed the pre-arranged signal by touching his head signifying the transaction was completed.
The officers immediately approached accused-appellant and the asset.
As the officers accosted them, the asset secretly handed the plastic sachet containing suspected shabu (Exhibit “H-1”) to SPO2 Whency Aro.
SPO2 Whency Aro immediately placed the markings “WGA-RAL” (Exhibit “H-1-A”).
PO3 Pera recovered the marked money from the accused-appellant’s right hand.
The team brought accused-appellant, the sachet, and the recovered marked money to the police station.

Documents and forensic examination

At the police station, SPO2 Aro turned over the sachet to PO3 Pera.
PO3 Pera prepared the Request for Forensic Examination (Exhibit “C”) signed by P/Sr. Supt David Micu Quimio, Jr., and the Inventory of Confiscated Items (Exhibit “F”).
A spot report (Exhibit “E”) was also accomplished, and a picture of accused-appellant with confiscated items (Exhibit “G”) was taken.
PO3 Pera then gave the plastic sachet and Request for Forensic Examination to PO3 Cesario Mandayuhan, who brought the items to the Batangas Crime Laboratory.
At the crime laboratory, SPO1 Vargas received the items and turned them over to PSI Jupri C. Delantar for forensic examination.
PSI Delantar conducted forensic examination on the specimen.
Based on Chemistry Report No. BD-054-06 (Exhibit “B”), the specimen was positive for Melhamphetamine Hydrochloride.
PSI Delantar’s testimony was dispensed with due to the defense admission of the genuineness and due execution of the chemistry report, with the defense qualification that the specimen did not come from accused-appellant.
The defense stipulated and admitted that Mandayuhan received the specimen from PO3 Pera and delivered it for examination, and that Vargas received the specimen and Request for Forensic Examination, as entered in the logbook, and that Vargas turned them over to PSI Delantar.
The stipulations and admissions caused the testimonies of Mandayuhan and Vargas to be dispensed with.

Accused-appellant’s defense

Accused-appellant denied the accusations and claimed he was merely selling his cellphone when he was wrongly apprehended.
He alleged that he was in front of Anson Shoemart at Barangay 5, Lipa City, Batangas, with Pango and Kwek-kwek, and that Pango intended to buy his cellphone.
He claimed that someone in civilian clothes held him by the neck, poked a gun at him, and searched him without finding anything.
He alleged that the female searched person took his cellphone, and police officers brought him to the police headquarters.
He alleged that the police officers took his name and fingerprints, made him point at the illegal drugs and marked money, and photographed him.
He claimed he complied due to fear of being hurt.
He alleged that while detained, his parents visited him.
On cross-examination, he admitted he did not know why the police officers would concoct a story charging him with selling shabu, since they had no motive.

RTC disposition

After finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt, the RTC, Branch 13, Lipa City rendere...(Subscriber-Only)

Issues:

Whether the prosecution proved the elements of illegal sale of shabu beyond reasonable doubt

Whether the prosecution established the identity of buyer and seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration, including the delivery of the illicit drug and payment through the buy-bust transaction.
Whether the corpus delicti was properly presented in court through competent proof of the seized drug’s identity.

Whether the chain of custody and marking requirements under Sec. 21 of R. A. No. 9165 were complied with or sufficiently shown

Whether the absence of poseur-buyer testimony defeated the prosecution’s proof of the drug’s identity and integrity.
Whether the manner and timing of marking (accused-appellant’s claim that marking was done at the police station; prosecution’s claim that marking was done at the arrest area) affected the prosecution’s case.
Whether the inventory signing defects alleged by accused-appellant and execution timing of the inventory at the police station instead of the place of operation were fatal.

Whether PDEA participation was indispensable in the buy-bust operation

Whether the buy-bust operation was invalid for lack of PDEA supervision, witnessing, or participation.

Whether qualitative examination, rather than quantitative examination, warranted acquittal

Whether the prosecution’s alleged qualitative examination of the s...(Subscriber-Only)

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

Supreme Court E-Library

Case Digest (G.R. No. 208015)
Concise Detailed

Facts:

Issues:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 208015)
Advanced

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 208015) Concise Detailed

Facts:

Issues:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 208015) Advanced

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 208015)
Concise Detailed

Case Digest (G.R. No. 208015)
Advanced