People v. Pringas (2007) Jackie Canlas APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

.: Facts: On 22 Apr 2003, SP04 Tuano, Officer-in-charge of the Station Drug Enforcement Unit of the Pasig City Police designated P01 Joselito Esmallaner to act as a poseur buyer in a buy-bust operation headed by SP03 Leneal Matias to be conducted against Alvin Pringas in his house in Beverly Street, Buting, Pasig City. Upon recognizing the informant, Pringas sold to Esmallaner a plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance later found to be shabu, for Php100. After conducting the sale, Esmanaller then arrested Pringas. He introduced himself as a police officer and informed the Pringas of his violation and his constitutional rights. Matias recovered the following from Pringas house: o 3 pcs. of heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing a white crystalline substance which turned out to be shabu (Methamphetamine Hydrochloride) o 2 disposable lighters o 6 strips of aluminium foil with traces of shabu (Methamphetamine Hydrochloride) o Improvised water pipe used as a tooter o Improvised burner o Wooden sealer o Small scissors o 14 pcs. Of transparent plastic sheets o 1 small needle on top of a small chair (bangkito) Pringas Defense: He denied the buy-bust operations. He claimed that he and his common-law wife Gina Dean were with their three children in their House in Beverly Street, Buting, Pasig City when somebody (later identified as Esmanaller, Mapula, Espares and Familiara) kicked the door of their house, entered without any search warrant or arrest warrant. The policemen subsequently conducted a search in the house but they neither recovered nor took anything. The violent entry was even witnessed by 3 of his neighbours who were having a drinking session. Pringas was charged with Violation of Sections 5, 11 and 12 of Republic Act No. 9165 Trial Court and Court of Appeals found him GUILTY Issue: WON Pringas is guilty of the offenses charged despite the inadmissibility of the evidence having been obtained in violation of Sections 21 and 86, RA 9165 Ruling: YES Ratio: Pringas Arguments Police officers violated Section 86 of RA 9165 when the alleged buy-bust operation that led to the apprehension of the appellant was conducted without the involvement of PDEA. SC It was very clear in the Joint Affidavit of Arrest of Esmanaller and Matias that the buy-bust operation subject of the case was not with the involvement of the PDEA.

Non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 regarding the custody and disposition of the confiscated/seized dangerous drugs and paraphernalia will make these items inadmissible in evidence.

Even assuming ex gratia argumenti, there is nothing in RA 9165 which even remotely indicate the intention of the legislature to make an arrest made without participation of PDEA illegal and evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible. Moreover, the law did not deprive the PNP of the power to make arrests. Non-compliance will not render an accuseds arrest illegal of the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. The Court held that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the items involved were safeguarded they were immediately marked for proper identification and forwarded to the Crime Laboratory for examination. The justifiable ground for non-compliance will remain unknown because appellant only raised the issue before the CA, which he cannot do. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Appellant was charged with violations of Sections 5, 11 and 12 of RA 9165. The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are: (1) Identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) Delivery of the thing sold and payment thereof. The evidence for the prosecution showed the presence of all these elements. The elements necessary for illegal possession of dangerous drugs are: (1) Accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug (2) Such possession is not authorized by law (3) Accused freely and consciously possessed the sad drug. All these elements have been established in the case at bar.

The conduct of a buy-bust operation is a common and accepted mode of apprehending those involved in an illegal sale of prohibited or regulated drugs. The Court did not see any clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive, so the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties must be upheld. Three of his neighbours witnessed the violent Pringas failed to present them or any of them to entry made by the policemen in his house. prove his point. APPEAL DENIED. Decisions of RTC and CA AFFIRMED IN TOTO.