Case Summary (G.R. No. 185719)
Factual Background and Charges
On October 9, 2004, Marcelino and Myra Collado were charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs (shabu) and maintaining a den or resort for drug use and sale under Sections 5 and 6, Article II of RA 9165. Marcelino was also charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165. Mark Cipriano, Samuel Sherwin Latario, Reynaldo Ranada, and others were charged with illegal possession of drug paraphernalia under Section 14, Article II of RA 9165. The charges stemmed from a buy-bust operation conducted by police officers led by PO2 Richard N. Noble and SPO2 Bernardo Cruz at the Collado residence in Pasig City.
Prosecution’s Version of Events
The prosecution presented evidence that PO2 Noble, based on a civilian tip and following surveillance, conducted a buy-bust operation where Marcelino sold a sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) to the police poseur buyer. The police proceeded to arrest Marcelino and others found on the premises with drug paraphernalia. The seized substances tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The accused were advised of their constitutional rights and thereafter subjected to medical examination and drug testing. Chemistry reports confirmed the presence of the illegal drug and drug use by several accused, including Marcelino and Ranada.
Defense’s Version of Events
The accused denied involvement in the drug transactions and claimed their activities were legitimate electronic repair work and business transactions. They alleged an unlawful and sudden armed arrest without proper procedure, denial of possession of illegal substances, and alleged extortion by PO2 Noble requesting money for dropping charges. The arrest was said to be motivated by a personal grudge from a former police officer named Rey. The defense also contested the validity of evidence handling.
Regional Trial Court (RTC) Decision
The RTC found Marcelino and Myra guilty beyond reasonable doubt for sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of RA 9165 and sentenced each to life imprisonment with fines of one million pesos. Marcelino was likewise convicted for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11. The court acquitted them of maintaining a den or resort (Section 6). The RTC convicted Ranada and the other accused for possession of drug paraphernalia under Section 14, sentencing them to imprisonment and fines, and ordered proper disposition of seized items.
Court of Appeals (CA) Ruling
The CA affirmed the validity of the warrantless arrests finding that the appellants were caught in flagrante delicto. It upheld the convictions of Marcelino and Myra for sale of dangerous drugs and Marcelino for possession. On possession of drug paraphernalia, Ranada was convicted as principal. The other accused, including Cipriano and Latario, were convicted only as accessories with penalties significantly reduced. They were sentenced to four months of arresto mayor plus fines.
Issues on Appeal
Appellants argued that their arrests were unlawful due to lack of warrant, failure to comply with procedural safeguards of RA 9165 on buy-bust operations, and alleged extortion. Additionally, they contended the chain of custody for the seized drugs was broken due to failure to inventory and photograph evidence and absence of testimony from the forensic chemist.
Analysis on Warrantless Arrest
Under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, warrantless arrests are lawful if the subject is caught in the act of committing a crime (in flagrante delicto). The buy-bust operation qualified under this rule, as the arrest followed directly after the sale of illegal drugs and finding drug paraphernalia in the immediate presence of police officers. Furthermore, the appellants waived any objection to the arrest procedure by failing to raise the issue before arraignment or to move for dismissal on such ground.
Legality of Search and Seizure
Search and seizure conducted incident to lawful arrest is valid without warrant. Since appellants’ arrests were lawful, the subsequent search and seizure of the drugs and paraphernalia were lawful under Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. Therefore, charges of unreasonable search and seizure were unfounded.
Allegation of Extortion
Appellants’ assertion that PO2 Noble extorted money is unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence. Self-serving allegations without corroboration fail to overcome the presumption of regularity of police officers’ official duties. The supposed prior grudge by a retired policeman “Rey” was neither proven nor connected to the buy-bust operation. The extensive surveillance and coordinated effort of the police negate the likelihood of fabrication solely for personal vendetta.
Chain of Custody and Evidence Handling
While RA 9165 requires immediate inventory and photographing of seized drugs in the presence of the accused or their representatives, media, DOJ or public officials, failure to strictly comply is not fatal if the integrity of the evidence is preserved. In this case, the police marked the seized drug sachets immediately and inventory was documented. The chemistry report confirmed the drug content. The absence of the forensic chemist as witness does not invalidate the prosecution’s evidence, as it is not obligatory to present all persons involved in custody and examination of evidence. The chain of custody was adequate under the circumstances.
Liability for Possession of Drug Paraphernalia
The RTC found all accused guilty of possession of drug paraphernalia based on the items found on a table where several persons were present. The CA differentiated liability, convicting Ranada as principal for possession and downgrading others as accessor
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 185719)
Case Background and Charges Filed
- On October 14, 2004, Marcelino and Myra Collado were charged with sale of dangerous drugs and maintenance of a den, dive or resort, violations of Sections 5 and 6, Article II, of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 13781-D and 13782-D.
- Marcelino Collado also faced charges for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II, of RA 9165, docketed as Criminal Case No. 13783-D.
- Mark Cipriano, Samuel Sherwin Latario, Reynaldo Ranada, and several co-accused were charged with possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of Section 14, Article II of RA 9165, in Criminal Case No. 13784-D.
- The charges stemmed from a buy-bust operation conducted on October 9, 2004, in Pasig City, involving the sale, possession, and control of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) and drug paraphernalia.
Summary of Prosecution's Version
- Police Officer PO2 Richard Noble received a tip from a civilian asset about the Collados' involvement in selling shabu, and that drug sessions occurred at their residence.
- A surveillance operation was conducted; confirmation led to a buy-bust team formation coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA).
- During the buy-bust, Marcelino sold a heat-sealed sachet of shabu to PO2 Noble, while Myra accepted the marked money.
- Simultaneously, the police arrested Marcelino and others found in possession or proximate to drug paraphernalia scattered on a table.
- Confiscated paraphernalia included aluminum foil, improvised glass tooters, plastic sachets, lighters, scissors, glass pieces, and other items; some tested positive for shabu.
- Chemistry reports confirmed positive results for methylamphetamine hydrochloride on seized substances and drug tests showed some accused positive for drug use.
Defense's Version and Claims
- Defendants denied any involvement with illegal drugs; they described the Collados owning an electronics shop unrelated to drug activity.
- At the time of arrest, the accused were either repairing or retrieving electronic items, with no drugs in their possession.
- Police officers allegedly entered forcibly and arrested them without warrants; no illegal items were found on them during frisking.
- At the police station, PO2 Noble demanded a P50,000.00 bribe to drop charges; some accused were forced to ingest bitter-tasting water resulting in positive drug test results.
- Marcelino suspected the police action was motivated by a prior dispute with a former policeman, Rey, over a malfunctioning VCD player, which allegedly led to threats against him.
Regional Trial Court (RTC) Findings and Decision
- RTC found Marcelino and Myra guilty beyond reasonable doubt of sale of a dangerous drug (Section 5, RA 9165), imposing life imprisonment and fines of P1,000,000 each.
- Marcelino was also found guilty of illegal possession of a dangerous drug (Section 11, RA 9165) and sentenced to 12 years and 1 day up to 15 years, plus a fine of P300,000.
- The court acquitted the Collados of maintaining a den or dive (Section 6, RA 9165).
- Other accused, including Ranada, were found guilty of possession of drug paraphernalia (Section 14, RA 9165) and meted penalties of 2 years, 8 months, one day to 4 years imprisonment and fines of P10,000 each.
- Probation was applied for by four co-accused; appeals followed by Marcelino, Myra, C