Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Agency Digests2
Agency Digests2
Agency Digests2
The Facts and the Case After the police officers informed Paloma,
Bamba, and Grotel of their rights during
The public prosecutor charged the custodial investigation, they brought them
accused Manuel Paloma (Paloma) before to the police station and turned them over
to the desk officer. The arresting officers
also turned over the three sachets of To prove the crime of illegal sale of drugs
suspected shabu that they under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, the
seized. According to PO2 Amigo, two of prosecution is required to prove (a) the
these sachets were those that PO1 identity of the buyer and the seller as well
Pealosa bought from Paloma. The police as the object and consideration of the
eventually let Bamba and Grotel go for the sale; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold
reason that the police officers found no and the payment given for the
illegal drugs in their possession. same. Further, the prosecution must
present in court evidence of corpus delicti.
In his defense, Paloma denied that such a [1]
Q: Can you see them All that PO2 Amigo could say was that PO1
talking with each
other from where Pealosa and the informant approached
you were Paloma, talked to him, and then PO1
stationed?
A: Yes, sir. Pealosa made the pre-arranged signal that
the sale had been consummated. Since he
Q: You said earlier Mr.
Witness that there was standing at a great distance during
were other person[s] the purported buy-bust, PO2 Amigo could
other than Paloma,
female and not provide the details of the offer to buy
male when Police
the drug and the acceptance of that
Officer Pealosa and
the confidential offer. Indeed, he did not see Paloma take
informant
money from PO1 Pealosa nor Pealosa take
approached him,
where were these delivery of the prohibited substance from
two persons?
A: They were beside each Paloma.
other.
Q: What were they doing,
these two persons at The cross-examination of PO2 Amigo does
that time when they not help. He testified:
approached by your
companion?
A: They were just standing. Q: As a back up Mr.
Witness you will
Q: When these Pealosa agree with me
and confidential that you cannot
informant hear what was the
approached the conversation
subject, what between the
happened informant, Mr.
next? What transpi Pealosa and Mr.
red next at that Paloma?
time? A: Yes, maam.
A: While they were
talking Pealosa Q: So you merely acted
made the pre- upon their gesture?
arrange[d] signal. A: Yes, maam.
Q: So Mr. Witness when you
Q: What was that signal rushed-in to the
that Pealosa did? place where the buy-
A: By waving his hand. bust operation was
Q: Meaning to say? being conducted,
A: The buy-bust has you just rushed-in
already not because you
consummated. were called upon,
but because of the
Q: When Pealosa made that gesture that the
signal what did you same was
do if any? consummated?
A: Yes maam only the pre-
arranged signal.
[6]
(Emphasis
supplied)
WE CONCUR:
While law enforcers enjoy the presumption
of regularity in the performance of their
duties, this presumption is disputable by ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
contrary proof and cannot prevail over the
constitutional right of the accused to be
presumed innocent.[7] The totality of the
evidence presented in this case does not PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,
JR. DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
support Palomas conviction for violation of Associate Justice Associate Justice
Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, since the
prosecution failed to prove beyond
reasonable doubt all the elements of the
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA
offense.[8] Associate Justice
That on or about the 30th day of July 2003, 5. That the PNP Crime
in the City of Makati, Philippines, a place Laboratory Office through
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Police Inspector Abraham
Court, the above-named accused, without Verde Tecson conducted an
being authorized by law, did then and examination on the
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously specimen submitted;
sell[,] distribute and transport, weighing
zero point zero six (0.06) gram of
6. That per examination, the
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu),
which is a dangerous drug, in violation of specimen submitted for
examination gave positive
the above-cited law.[3]
result for the test of
Methylamphetamine
In Criminal Case No. 03-2796, appellant Hydrochloride;
was charged with illegal possession
of shabu allegedly committed as follows: 7. That after examination of
the specimen submitted,
That on or about the 30th day of July the PNP Crime Laboratory
2003, in the City of Makati, Philippines, a Office through the Forensic
place within the jurisdiction of this Chemist prepared the Initial
Honorable Court, the above-named Laboratory Report; and
accused, not lawfully authorized to
possess or otherwise use any dangerous
8. The qualification of the
drug and without the corresponding
Forensic Chemist.
license or prescription, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in
his possession, direct custody and control xxxx
weighing zero point zero seven (0.07)
gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride With the stipulation entered into by the
(Shabu), which is a dangerous drug, in prosecution and the defense, the
violation of the above-cited law.[4] testimony of the Forensic Chemist, P/Insp.
Abraham Verde Tecson, is dispensed with.
[5]
In every prosecution for illegal sale What happened after Alias Beng went out?
of shabu under Section 5, Art. II of
Republic Act No. 9165 or the WITNESS:
"Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002," the following elements must be I was introduced by the informant to her,
sufficiently proved: (1) the identity of the sir.
buyer and the seller, the object and the
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the PROS. BAGAOISAN:
thing sold and the payment therefor.[11] All
these elements were duly established. How were you introduced to the accused?
Appellants were caught in flagrante
delicto selling shabu through a buy-bust WITNESS:
operation conducted by MADAC
operatives. That I am interested of shabu and then I
am going to buy shabu, sir.
At the outset, we affirm the findings of the
trial court with respect to the credibility of PROS. BAGAOISAN:
the prosecution witnesses considering that
the trial court had the opportunity to And, what did the accused reply, if any?
observe the conduct and demeanor of the
witnesses during the trial. It is a WITNESS:
fundamental rule that findings of the trial
courts which are factual in nature and Alias Beng asked the informant if I am
which involve credibility are accorded okay, sir.
respect when no glaring errors; gross
misapprehension of facts; or speculative, PROS. BAGAOISAN:
arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions
can be gathered from such findings.[12] And, what was the reply of the informant if
there was any?
The poseur-buyer, MADAC operative
Farias, positively testified that the sale WITNESS:
of shabu took place and appellant was
caught red-handed, thus: The informant replied: "Okay yan mare,
kaibigan ko yan."
PROS. BAGAOISAN:
PROS. BAGAOISAN:
And, how long did you wait for the
accused? What happened next after that?
WITNESS: WITNESS:
We just waited for seconds and then we I gave the Two Hundred Pesos to Alias
saw alias Beng because the informant Beng and she took it from me, sir.
called her, sir.
PROS. BAGAOISAN:
PROS. BAGAOISAN:
And, what did the accused do after she
Now, where did the accused come from? received the buy bust money?
WITNESS: WITNESS:
Their house is located at the corner of She put the money inside her right pocket
Danlig and Tolentino Streets and their and then she drew a plastic sachet in her
fence is quite low, so the informant just left pocket, sir.
called her, sir.
PROS. BAGAOISAN:
PROS. BAGAOISAN:
And, what did she do with the plastic Exhibit J-1. Do you still confirm and affirm
sachet which she drew from her pocket? the truthfulness of your allegations in this
affidavit?
WITNESS:
WITNESS:
She handed to me the plastic sachet and
then she was as if examining it and then I Yes, sir.
gave the pre-arranged signal, sir.[13]
PROS. BAGAOISAN:
While it was only Farias who testified on
the consummated sale transaction, PO2 Now, you mentioned in your affidavit that
Igno corroborated Farias statements in the poseur buyer was able to
the Joint Affidavit of Arrest[14] he executed buyshabu from the accused in this case,
together with Farias and PO2 Tolentino. do your (sic) confirm that statement?
PO2 Igno confirmed that Farias was
able to buy shabu from appellant. WITNESS:
PROS. BAGAOISAN:
Now, Mr. Witness, in connection with the
buy bust operation that you conducted
against Bertha Presas y Tolentino do you Were you able to see the shabu subject
recall having executed an affidavit of matter of the sale transaction?[15]
arrest?
Chemistry Report No. D-959-03 confirmed
WITNESS: that a qualitative examination conducted
on the specimens inside the plastic
Yes sir. sachets seized from appellant yielded
positive result for Methylamphetamine
PROS. BAGAOISAN: Hydrochloride or shabu.[16]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff- The police officers on duty then were PO1
Appellee, NELSON MARIANO and PO3 EDUARDO
vs. RAMIREZ. PO1 Mariano testified that they
MEDARIO CALANTIAO y immediately responded to said complaint
DIMALANTA, Accused-Appellant. by proceeding to 5th Avenue corner 8th
Street, Caloocan City where they found
DECISION the white taxi. While approaching said
vehicle, two armed men alighted
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: therefrom, fired their guns towards them
(police officers) and ran away. PO1
This is an appeal from the January 1 7, Mariano and PO3 Ramirez chased them
2012 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in but they were subdued. PO1 Mariano
CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 04069, affirming in recovered from Calantiao a black bag
toto the July 23, 2009 Decision2 of the containing two (2) bricks of dried
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City, marijuana fruiting tops and a magazine of
Branch 127, finding accused-appellant super 38 stainless with ammos, while PO3
Medario Calantiao y Dimalanta (Calantiao) Ramirez recovered from Calantiaos
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of companion [a] .38 revolver.
violating Section 11, Article II of Republic
Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive The suspects and the confiscated items
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. were then turned over to SPO3 PABLO
TEMENA, police investigator at Bagong
On November 13, 2003, Calantiao was Barrio Police Station for investigation.
charged before the RTC of violation of Thereat, PO1 Mariano marked the bricks of
Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. marijuana contained in a black bag with
9165 in an Information,3 the pertinent his initials, "NM". Thereafter, said
portion of which reads: That on or about specimen were forwarded to the PNP
the 11th day of November, 2003 in Crime Laboratory for chemical analysis.
Caloocan City, Metro Manila, Philippines The result of the examination conducted
and within the jurisdiction of this by P/SINSP. JESSSE DELA ROSA revealed
Honorable Court, the above-named that the same was positive for marijuana,
accused, without any authority of law, did a dangerous drug.
The foregoing testimony of PO1 MARIANO you" sign against the persons on board of
was corroborated by PO3 RAMIREZ who that car. That prompted the latter to chase
testified that he personally saw those them and when they were caught in a
bricks of marijuana confiscated from the traffic jam, PO1 Nelson Mariano, one of the
accused. He confirmed that he was with persons on board of that other car
PO1 Mariano when they apprehended said alighted and kicked their taxi. Calantiao
accused and his companion and testified and Reyes alighted and PO1 Mariano
that while PO1 Mariano recovered from the slapped the latter and uttered, "Putang ina
accused a black bag containing marijuana, mo bakit mo ako pinakyu hindi mo ba ako
on his part, he confiscated from accuseds kilala?" Said police officer poked his gun
companion a .38 revolver. again[st] Reyes and when Calantiao tried
to grab it, the gun fired. Calantiao and
MR. CRISENDO AMANSEC, the driver of the Reyes were then handcuffed and were
taxi where the suspects boarded was also brought to the police station. Thereat,
presented in open court and testified as to they were subjected to body frisking and
what he knows about the incident. He their wallets and money were taken. PO1
confirmed that on that date, two (2) Mariano then prepared some documents
persons boarded on his taxi and upon and informed them that they will be
reaching C-3 Road, they alighted and fired charged for drugs. A newspaper
three (3) shots and ran away. containing marijuana was shown to them
and said police officer told them that it
Aside from the oral testimonies of the would be sufficient evidence against them.
witnesses, the prosecution also offered the They were detained and subjected to
following documentary evidence to boost medical examination before they were
their charge against the accused: submitted for inquest at the prosecutors
office.4
Exh. "A" Request for Laboratory
Examination dated November 12, Ruling of the RTC
2003
On July 23, 2009, the RTC rendered its
Exh. "B" Physical Sciences Report Decision giving credence to the
No. D-1423-03 dated November 12, prosecutions case. The dispositive portion
2003 of the Decision reads:
Second, Calantiao did not waive the When an arrest is made, it is reasonable
inadmissibility of the seized items. for the arresting officer to search the
person arrested in order to remove any
xxxx weapon that the latter might use in order
to resist arrest or effect his escape. doctrine is usually applied where a police
Otherwise, the officers safety might well officer is not searching for evidence
be endangered, and the arrest itself against the accused, but nonetheless
frustrated. In addition, it is entirely inadvertently comes across an
reasonable for the arresting officer to incriminating object x x x. [It] serves to
search for and seize any evidence on the supplement the prior justification
arrestees person in order to prevent its whether it be a warrant for another object,
concealment or destruction. hot pursuit, search incident to lawful
arrest, or some other legitimate reason for
Moreover, in lawful arrests, it becomes being present unconnected with a search
both the duty and the right of the directed against the accused and
apprehending officers to conduct a permits the warrantless seizure."17
warrantless search not only on the person
of the suspect, but also in the permissible The Plain View Doctrine thus finds no
area within the latters reach. Otherwise applicability in Calantiaos situation
stated, a valid arrest allows the seizure of because the police officers purposely
evidence or dangerous weapons either on searched him upon his arrest. The police
the person of the one arrested or within officers did not inadvertently come across
the area of his immediate control. The the black bag, which was in Calantiaos
phrase "within the area of his immediate possession; they deliberately opened it, as
control" means the area from within which part of the search incident to Calantiaos
he might gain possession of a weapon or lawful arrest.
destructible evidence. A gun on a table or
in a drawer in front of one who is arrested Inventory and Chain of
can be as dangerous to the arresting Custody of Evidence
officer as one concealed in the clothing of
the person arrested. (Citations omitted.) Calantiao claims that even if the search
and seizure were validly effected, the
In Valeroso, however, the Court held that marijuana is still inadmissible as evidence
the evidence searched and seized from against him for failure of the apprehending
him could not be used against him officers to comply with the rules on chain
because they were discovered in a room, of custody, as the item was marked at the
different from where he was being police station.18
detained, and was in a locked cabinet.
Thus, the area searched could not be The pertinent provisions of Republic Act
considered as one within his immediate No. 9165 provide as follows:
control that he could take any weapon or
destroy any evidence against him.15
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of
Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered
In the case at bar, the marijuana was Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of
found in a black bag in Calantiaos Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors
possession and within his immediate and Essential Chemicals,
control. He could have easily taken any Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or
weapon from the bag or dumped it to Laboratory Equipment. The PDEA shall
destroy the evidence inside it. As the take charge and have custody of all
black bag containing the marijuana was in dangerous drugs, plant sources of
Calantiaos possession, it was within the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors
permissible area that the apprehending and essential chemicals, as well as
officers could validly conduct a instruments/paraphernalia and/or
warrantless search. laboratory equipment so confiscated,
seized and/or surrendered, for proper
Calantiaos argument that the marijuana disposition in the following manner:
cannot be used as evidence against him
because its discovery was in violation of (1) The apprehending team having
the Plain View Doctrine, is misplaced. initial custody and control of the
drugs shall, immediately after
The Plain View Doctrine is actually the seizure and confiscation, physically
exception to the inadmissibility of inventory and photograph the
evidence obtained in a warrantless search same in the presence of the
incident to a lawful arrest outside the accused or the person/s from
suspects person and premises under his whom such items were confiscated
immediate control. This is so because and/or seized, or his/her
"[o]bjects in the plain view of an officer representative or counsel, a
who has the right to be in the position to representative from the media and
have that view are subject to seizure and the Department of Justice (DOJ),
may be presented as evidence."16 "The and any elected public official who
shall be required to sign the copies the determination of the guilt or innocence
of the inventory and be given a of the accused.19
copy thereof[.]
Section 21 and its IRR do not even
Its Implementing Rules and Regulations mention "marking." What they require are
state: (1) physical inventory, and (2) taking of
photographs. As this Court held in People
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of v. Ocfemia20:
Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered
Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of What Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its
Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors implementing rule do not expressly
and Essential Chemicals, specify is the matter of "marking" of the
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or seized items in warrantless seizures to
Laboratory Equipment. The PDEA shall ensure that the evidence seized upon
take charge and have custody of all apprehension is the same evidence
dangerous drugs, plant sources of subjected to inventory and photography
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors when these activities are undertaken at
and essential chemicals, as well as the police station rather than at the place
instruments/paraphernalia and/or of arrest. Consistency with the "chain of
laboratory equipment so confiscated, custody" rule requires that the "marking"
seized and/or surrendered, for proper of the seized items to truly ensure that
disposition in the following manner: they are the same items that enter the
chain and are eventually the ones offered
(a) The apprehending officer/team in evidence should be done (1) in the
having initial custody and control of presence of the apprehended violator (2)
the drugs shall, immediately after immediately upon confiscation.
seizure and confiscation, physically
inventory and photograph the The prosecution was able to establish the
same in the presence of the chain of custody of the seized marijuana
accused or the person/s from from the time the police officers
whom such items were confiscated confiscated it, to the time it was turned
and/or seized, or his/her over to the investigating officer, up to the
representative or counsel, a time it was brought to the forensic chemist
representative from the media and for laboratory examination.21 This Court
the Department of Justice (DOJ), has no reason to overrule the RTC and the
and any elected public official who Court of Appeals, which both found the
shall be required to sign the copies chain of custody of the seized drugs to
of the inventory and be given a have not been broken so as to render the
copy thereof; Provided, that the marijuana seized from Calantiao
physical inventory and photograph inadmissible in evidence.
shall be conducted at the place
where the search warrant is Furthermore, unless it can be shown that
served; or at the nearest police there was bad faith, ill will, or tampering of
station or at the nearest office of the evidence, the presumption that the
the apprehending officer/team, integrity of the evidence has been
whichever is practicable, in case of preserved will remain. The burden of
warrantless seizures; Provided, showing the foregoing to overcome the
further, that non-compliance with presumption that the police officers
these requirements under handled the seized drugs with regularity,
justifiable grounds, as long as the and that they properly discharged their
integrity and the evidentiary value duties is on Calantiao. Unfortunately,
of the seized items are properly Calantiao failed to discharge such
preserved by the apprehending burden.22
officer/team, shall not render void
and invalid such seizures of and It is worthy to note that these arguments
custody over said items[.] were only raised by Calantiao on his
(Emphasis supplied.) appeal. He himself admits this.23 His
theory, from the very beginning, was that
This Court has held that the failure to he did not do it, and that he was being
strictly comply with Section 21, Article II of framed for having offended the police
Republic Act No. 9165, such as officers. Simply put, his defense tactic was
immediately marking seized drugs, will not one of denial and frame-up. However,
automatically impair the integrity of chain those defenses have always been frowned
of custody because what is of utmost upon by the Court, to wit:
importance is the preservation of the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items, as these would be utilized in
The defenses of denial and frame-up have DECISION
been invariably viewed by this Court with
disfavor for it can easily be concocted and PEREZ, J.:
is a common and standard defense ploy in
prosecutions for violation of Dangerous This is an appeal by Monica Mendoza y
Drugs Act. In order to prosper, the Trinidad (accused-appellant) from the
defenses of denial and frame-up must be Decision1 dated August 28, 2009 of the
proved with strong and convincing Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC
evidence. In the cases before us, appellant No. 03426. The CA affirmed the
failed to present sufficient evidence in Decision2 rendered by the Regional Trial
support of his claims. Aside from his self- Court (RTC), Branch 64, Makati City in
serving assertions, no plausible proof was Criminal Case Nos. 04-2068 and 04-2069
presented to bolster his allegations.24 convicting accused-appellant of violating
Hence, as Calantiao failed to show clear Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No.
and convincing evidence that the 9165, otherwise known as the
apprehending officers were stirred by illicit Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
motive or failed to properly perform their 2002.
duties, their testimonies deserve full faith
and credit.25
The two separate informations filed
against accused-appellant read thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
Court hereby AFFIRMS the January 17,
2012 Decision of the Court of Appeals in Criminal Case No. 04-2068:
CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 04069.
"That on or about the 15th day of May
SO ORDERED. 2004 in the City of Makati,Metro Manila,
Philippines, and a place within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO above-named accused, without being
Associate Justice authorized by law, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell,
WE CONCUR: distribute and transport
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu),
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO weighing zero point zero three (0.03)
Chief Justice gram, which is a dangerous drug, in
Chairperson consideration of two hundred (Php200.00)
pesos, in violation of the above-cited law."
LUCAS P. MARTIN S.
BERSAMIN VILLARAMA, JR. Criminal Case No. 04-2069:
Associate Justice Associate Justice
"That on or about the 15th day of May
BIENVENIDO L. REYES 2004 in the City of Makati, Metro Manila,
Associate Justice Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named
CERTIFICATION accused, without corresponding license or
prescription, did then and there willfully,
feloniously have in his possession, direct
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
custody and control zero point zero eight
Constitution, I certify that the conclusions
(0.08) gram of Methamphetamine
in the above Decision had been reached in
Hydrochloride (shabu), which is a
consultation before the case was assigned
dangerous drug, in violation of the above-
to the writer of the opinion of the Court's
cited law."
Division.
After arraignment and pre-trial were
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
conducted by the trial court, a joint trial on
Chief Justice
the merits ensued.
PO2 dela Cruz gave a detailed account on At any rate, accused-appellant failed to
how the buy-bust operation against raise any objection to the manner of her
accused-appellant took place; that is, from arrest before arraignment.1wphi1 In fact,
the initial transaction to the eventual she participated in the trial. She even took
delivery of the shabu. the witness stand and testified in her own
behalf. She is now estopped from assailing
Accused-appellant alleged that the trial the legality of her arrest as she waived
court erred in appreciating the evidence any irregularity, if any, that may have
presented by the prosecution as they were tainted her arrest.
seized as a result of an unlawful arrest.
She insists that a valid warrant should Significantly, the proof of an in flagrante
have been secured first before they delicto an-est, removes whatever
proceeded to arrest her. credibility there may have been about the
testimony of the accused-appellant of the
This argument is totally faulty and is alleged circumstances that made her go
without even an iota of credibility. The with the police to the DEU unit. Her
warrantless arrest conducted on accused- version that she was a frame-up victim
appellant was valid. Section 5, Rule 113 of cannot stand against the testimony of the
the Rules of Criminal Procedure police, supported by evidence of corpus
enumerates the situations when a person delicti.
may be arrested without a warrant, thus:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the
"SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when Decision appealed from, finding accused-
lawful. - A peace officer or a private appellant Monica Mendoza guilty beyond
person may, without a warrant, arrest a reasonable doubt for violation of Sections
person: 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No.
9165, otherwise known as the
(a) When, in his presence, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
person to be arrested has 2002, is hereby AFFIRMED.
committed, is actually committing,
or is attempting to commit an SO ORDERED.
offense;
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ before the case was assigned to the writer
Associate Justice of the opinion of the Courts Division.