G.R. No. 178409 - Fadriquelan vs. Monterey Foods Corp.

Accused-appellant Mhods Usman y Gogo was charged with the illegal sale of shabu, a dangerous drug, in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).
The charge arose from an alleged transaction on December 17, 2003, in Manila, where the accused sold 0.068 grams of a white crystalline substance containing methylamphetamine hydrochloride.

The operation was initiated following a tip from a confidential informant who observed the accused allegedly engaging in the sale of shabu at Isla Puting Bato.
A five-member team from the Anti Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Unit was assembled, including:

The plan involved using marked P100.00 bills (delivered by the team leader) to facilitate the buy-bust operation.
Upon reaching the location, the accused was identified based on the description given by the confidential informant.
During the operation:

The accused approached the confidential informant and inquired about purchasing shabu.
He accepted the marked money and delivered a plastic sachet containing the substance.
The officer (PO1 Sta. Maria) immediately intervened, arrested the accused, and read him his rights.

After the arrest, the evidence (sachet with the suspected drug) was retained by PO1 Sta. Maria until he could mark it with the accused’s initials (aMUGa) at the police station.
PO2 Elymar Garcia received the marked evidence and submitted it for laboratory examination, which confirmed the substance as methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).
Although certain procedural lapses occurred (e.g., delays in marking the evidence immediately on scene and the absence of an inventory including media and DOJ representatives), the chain of custody was maintained to preserve the evidentiary value.

The prosecution presented direct testimonies from police officers (PO1 Sta. Maria and PO2 Garcia) as well as stipulations from other witnesses regarding the presentation of physical evidence.
The accused-appellant, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty but later raised claims of a frame-up and extortion by the arresting officers.

The RTC found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision in toto, upholding the conviction and citing the legitimacy of the buy-bust operation and the sufficiency of the evidence.

Alleged illegal warrantless arrest, contending that his arrest occurred under circumstances that violated procedural safeguards.
Claimed that he was not properly apprised of his rights pursuant to Republic Act No. 7438.
Argued that non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 – concerning the chain of custody and inventory requirements of seized dangerous drugs – affected the admissibility and integrity of the evidence.
Maintained that he was framed up by the arresting officers through extortion and improper conduct.

Whether the warrantless arrest of the accused-appellant was lawful given that he was caught in flagrante delicto during a buy-bust operation.
Whether any alleged defects in the arrest procedure should have been raised prior to his plea at arraignment.

Whether the accused-appellant’s rights under Republic Act No. 7438 were violated by not being properly informed of his rights during the arrest.
Whether such claims, raised only on appeal, can be entertained given the procedural rules.

Whether the failure to immediately inventory and photograph the seized drug, as mandated by Section 21 of RA 9165, renders the seizure of evidence inadmissible.
Whether the lapses in documentational protocols affect the integrity and admissibility of the drug evidence.

Whether the elements necessary for proving the illegal sale of shabu were established beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the testimony of the law enforcement officers sufficiently corroborated the occurrence of the transaction.