Title
People vs. Goyena y Abraham
Case
G.R. No. 229680
Decision Date
Jun 6, 2019
Appellant convicted for illegal drug sale; warrantless arrest upheld, chain of custody preserved, life imprisonment affirmed.
illegal sale
methamphetamine hydrochloride
warrantless arrest
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 229680)

Accusation and Plea

The Information, dated November 29, 2012, charged that appellant knowingly and unlawfully sold and delivered to a PDEA poseur-buyer one medium-sized heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), weighing 0.301 gram, for P500.00, without authority of law, in violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. During arraignment on December 20, 2012, appellant entered a plea of not guilty, and the case proceeded to trial.

Factual Background as Narrated by the Prosecution

The prosecution presented the events through the buy-bust operation conducted by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Special Enforcement Team in Legazpi City. On November 28, 2012, around 10:00 a.m., the PDEA team received information from a confidential informant (CI) that appellant and his sister, Cyramil Goyena, were involved in selling dangerous drugs in Cabangan, Legazpi City. The information was verified such that Cyramil appeared in the PDEA’s list of suspected drug sellers in Albay. With the presence of PDEA agents Enrico Barba and Jonathan Ivan Revilla (Agent Revilla), the CI contacted Cyramil to set up a controlled purchase of P3,500.00-worth of shabu for a buy-bust operation. Cyramil agreed and disclosed that appellant would meet the CI because she was indisposed.

The PDEA coordinated with the Legazpi City Police Intelligence Unit for the operation. During the pre-operational briefing, the team designated Agent Revilla as the poseur-buyer, PO2 Jose Caspe (PO2 Caspe) as back-up and the arresting officer, and other members as perimeter security. Around 2:00 p.m., the buy-bust team proceeded to the target area. Agent Revilla and the CI waited as if for a ride in front of a dilapidated building, while other team members positioned themselves strategically.

Appellant approached Agent Revilla and the CI. After introductions and confirmation that the purchase involved P3,500.00-worth of shabu, appellant handed Agent Revilla one medium-sized heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu. Agent Revilla then gave appellant the marked money and boodle money totaling the agreed consideration. Once the exchange was completed, Agent Revilla turned his baseball cap as the pre-arranged signal that the transaction had been consummated. Appellant attempted to resist arrest, but PO2 Caspe and the rest of the team subdued him. Agent Revilla marked the seized plastic sachet with his initials, “JIR-11/28/12,” at the scene.

Due to a commotion, the team returned to the police station with appellant. At the police station, PO2 Caspe conducted a body search on appellant, which yielded a black pouch containing the marked money, a Nokia 3310 cellular phone, a lighter, and a .22 caliber bullet. PO2 Caspe marked these items with his initials “JBC” and the date of seizure “11/28/12,” and prepared the Certificate of Inventory. Inventory-taking was witnessed by appellant, Barangay Captain Santos Perez, Barangay Kagawad Richard Diaz, a media representative Darlan Barcelon, and a Department of Justice representative Jesus Arsenio Aragon. The incident in the PDEA office was documented by photographs.

The team then proceeded to the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory Office V in Legazpi City. Agent Revilla, who retained custody over the seized sachet since confiscation, personally submitted the sachet and the Request for Laboratory Examination to P/SI Wilfredo Pabustan, Jr. (P/SI Pabustan), the forensic chemist. Under Chemistry Report No. D-173-2012, the specimen tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu.

Version of the Defense

Appellant denied the charge. He testified that on November 28, 2012, at around 3:30 p.m., he was playing “cara y cruz” at an old building in Cabangan, Legazpi City while waiting for Cyramil. He momentarily left the group to relieve himself, and upon returning, about ten men accosted him. When he asked why he was being arrested, the men told him to follow them. He called for help from the barangay captain and his playmates, but no one assisted. The men handcuffed him and led him away, and he felt something being inserted into his pocket.

According to appellant, one of the men turned out to be Agent Revilla. Agent Revilla allegedly retrieved a black pouch from appellant’s pocket and produced a P500.00 bill and a plastic sachet containing a substance “similar to tawas.” Appellant claimed he was surprised because the only thing in his pocket had been his coin purse, and he believed the men were planting evidence. Appellant further testified that people started arriving and that Agent Revilla and his companions brought him to the Legazpi City Police Station. There, “Caspe” presented the seized items. After the arrival of the barangay captain, a kagawad, a Department of Justice representative, and a photographer, appellant was frisked, which allegedly yielded only his coin purse. He also denied that he sold shabu, insisting he was merely arrested for illegal gambling.

RTC Findings

The RTC convicted appellant of violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. It found that the prosecution established the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs: that appellant, as conspirator of Cyramil, delivered the illegal drug—later determined to be shabu—to the poseur-buyer, Agent Revilla, and received the payment. The RTC gave weight to Agent Revilla’s positive identification of appellant as the seller. It found Agent Revilla’s testimony candid, straightforward, and credible, and it sustained the prosecution’s version over appellant’s denial.

Accordingly, the RTC sentenced appellant to life imprisonment and imposed a fine of P1,000,000.00.

CA Review and Affirmance

On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC in full. It held that all elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were satisfactorily established. The CA treated appellant’s identity as not in doubt because he was allegedly caught in flagrante delicto during the buy-bust operation. It relied on Agent Revilla’s positive testimony that appellant sold a heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance to the poseur-buyer.

The CA rejected appellant’s argument that his warrantless arrest was illegal. It held that the prosecution proved appellant’s apprehension occurred after a legitimate buy-bust operation, which placed the arrest within the scope of arrests in flagrante delicto. The CA further sustained the legality of the arrest by stating that police officers were not only authorized but even duty-bound to arrest without a warrant when the suspect is caught in flagrante delicto.

On the evidence handling issue, the CA concluded that the prosecution sufficiently complied with the chain of custody requirement. It reasoned that Agent Revilla marked the seized item in the presence of appellant and then continued inventory immediately upon arrival at the police station, with multiple witnesses including barangay and media representatives and a DOJ representative. The CA also noted that the buy-bust team delivered the sachet to the PNP crime laboratory on the same day, and that Agent Revilla later identified the specimen bearing the marking “JIR-11/28/12.”

Issues Raised on Appeal

Appellant raised two principal issues. First, he questioned the legality of his warrantless arrest and argued that any evidence obtained from him should be inadmissible as “fruits of the poisonous tree.” Second, he argued that the integrity and identity of the seized shabu were not preserved because the PDEA agents allegedly failed to mark and conduct inventory at the place of arrest.

Legal Framework on Illegal Sale and Consummation of the Offense

The Supreme Court reiterated that in prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs such as shabu, the prosecution must establish (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. It emphasized that the prosecution must prove that the transaction or sale actually took place, and that the seized dangerous drugs presented in court correspond to the contraband involved in the sale.

It also reaffirmed that illegal sale is consummated upon completion of the selling transaction, which occurs the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. Thus, once the poseur-buyer went through the operation as a buyer, offered money was accepted, and dangerous drugs were delivered, the crime was considered consummated by delivery.

Supreme Court’s Evaluation of the Buy-Bust, Arrest, and Identity

The Supreme Court held that appellant’s identity as the seller was proven beyond reasonable doubt. It pointed to Agent Revilla’s positive identification of appellant as the person who sold a white crystalline substance later confirmed as methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). The Court also noted that the prosecution showed appellant sold the shabu to Agent Revilla for a consideration of P3,500.00 and that the heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet presented before the trial court was positively identified as the shabu delivered during the buy-bust operation.

It also found that appellant was apprehended during a legitimate entrapment operation. Aside from the Authority to Operate and the Pre-Operation Report, the prosecution witnesses had detailed the events leading to and during the buy-bust operation. On that basis, the Court concluded that appellant’s warrantless arrest and the subsequent search were lawful.

The Court treated a buy-bust operation as a valid and legitimate form of entrapment of the drug pusher. It explained that in such an operation, the poseur-buyer transacts by purchasing the dangerous drugs and paying the agreed price, after which the drug pusher delivers the drug in exchange for consideration. Once the transaction is consummated, the drug pusher is arrested. The Court also relied on the justification that arrests in buy-bust settings are considered

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms