Title
People vs. Estabillo y Palara
Case
G.R. No. 252902
Decision Date
Jun 16, 2021
SPO1 Estabillo convicted for illegal sale and possession of cocaine; Supreme Court upheld conviction, affirming valid warrantless arrest, unbroken chain of custody, and justified non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 217428)

Background of the Case

The case stems from the appeal of SPO1 Alexander Estabillo y Palara following his conviction by the Regional Trial Court for violating Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165. The evidence against the accused involved two separate Information charges linked to a buy-bust operation conducted in Pasig City on June 14, 2010. The appellant was accused of illegal sale and possession of cocaine.

Prosecution's Version

The prosecution established the context of the operation, wherein a confidential informant alerted Police Superintendent Acierto of suspected drug activities by a police officer named "Alex." A buy-bust operation was coordinated, leading to a meeting where officer SPO2 Taldo acted as the poseur buyer. The prosecution detailed how the transaction unfolded, including appellant’s delivery of cocaine in exchange for cash—a transaction made within the view of law enforcement. Subsequent searches yielded additional cocaine from the appellant's vehicle, corroborating the illegal nature of his activities.

Defense's Position

The defense presented a differing narrative, claiming that the accused was a victim of a violent abduction rather than a perpetrator of a drug sale. Appellant claimed he was followed and forcibly taken by armed individuals. He denied ownership of the drugs found during the police operation, arguing inadequate evidence to establish his guilt and pointing to procedural lapses during the buy-bust operation.

Ruling of the Trial Court

The Regional Trial Court upheld the prosecution's evidence, finding the appellant guilty of both charges. The court clarified that the essential elements of illegal sale and possession were proven, particularly the unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs. It imposed life imprisonment and a fine of ten million pesos for each violation of the law.

Arguments on Appeal

On appeal, the appellant challenged the trial court's findings, asserting that:

  1. His arrest was unlawful, lacking probable cause.
  2. There was no direct evidence connecting him to the drugs since officers lacked knowledge of the package contents.
  3. The absence of a Department of Justice (DOJ) representative during inventory procedures compromised the integrity of the operation.
  4. There were discrepancies in the chain of custody concerning the handling of seized drugs.

The Court of Appeals' Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, determining that the appellant was rightly arrested in the act of selling drugs—the consensual nature of his interaction with the poseur buyer establishe

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.