Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 190179
October 20, 2010
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,
vs.
EDWARD R. FELICIANO, ANITA G. LAURORA, EDITHA C. MAGLALANG, MAY G.
ESTRELLA, and ROMELITO G. RUELO, Respondent
THE FACTS
On February 22, 2006 at around 10:00 in the evening, PO2 Monte received a telephone
call from a concerned citizen reporting an illegal drug trade being operated by a certain
Janggo at the Rodriguez Compound, Barangay Rosario, Pasig City which validated
the letter-complaint the police had earlier received from the Barangay Captain
of Barangay Rosario, implicating a similar person called Janggo in drug-related
activities.
Immediately after receiving the telephone call, PO2 Monte informed his team
leader, Police Inspector Ronald Pamor, about the alleged drug trade and after which he
organized a buy-bust operation. PO2 Monte was designated as poseur-buyer and, for
that purpose, he was given two PhP 100 bills where he put his initials BVM.
Upon reaching the target area, PO2 Monte saw a man standing in front whom
the informant identified as Janggo. They approached Janggo and then saw a
woman standing on the doorway. The informant introduced PO2 Monte to Janggo as a
regular buyer of shabuand asked for a Php 200 worth of it and suddenly noticed two
women and a man seated inside the house. Janggo then asked the woman standing
near the doorway for shabu. The woman then pulled a plastic sachet from her right
pocket which she handed to Janggo, who, in turn, handed it to PO2 Monte.
Upon receiving and examining the plastic sachet, PO2 Monte took off his
baseball cap, signify the consummation of the sale. The back-up operatives then
rushed to assist PO2 Monte as he arrest Jango. PO2 Caparas then apprehended the
woman standing near the doorway, while PO1 Vega and PO1 Mapula cornered the
three other persons inside the house. All of them were brought to the police station for
further investigation, after which they were brought to the Philippine National Police
(PNP) Crime Laboratory at Camp Crame for the mandatory drug examination.
1 | 2DLM|Constitutional Law
THE ISSUES
I
Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in admitting the seized dangerous
drug as evidence against the accused-appellants despite being the result of an
unlawful arrest.
II.
Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in pronouncing the guilt of the
accused-appellants despite the arresting officers non-compliance with the
requirements for the proper custody of seized dangerous drugs under R.A. No.
9165.
III.
Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in pronouncing the guilt of the
accused-appellants despite the unjustified failure of the arresting officers to
preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized dangerous drug.
RULING
The appeal has no merit and the buy-bust operation conducted was lawful and valid.
The chain of custody was also properly established. Moreover, no proof was adduced to
support the claim that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized drugs were
compromised. Thus, this Court finds no reason to overturn the finding of the trial court
that the same drugs seized from accused-appellants were the same ones presented
during trial. As it were, the chain of custody of the illicit drugs seized from accusedappellants remains unbroken.
2 | 2DLM|Constitutional Law
3 | 2DLM|Constitutional Law
FACTS:
January 18, 2003, at around 10:00 in the evening, the officers on duty at the Alabat
Police Station, Quezon, received an information that appellant, Antonio Magpayao, is
selling shabu in Barangay , Alabat, Quezon. A buy-bust operation was conducted. PO1
Jimmy Gaya, as the designated poseur-buyer, approached the appellant and handled
him the marked where the appellant afforded to him the presumed drugs. The appellant
was frisked for any deadly weapons where four more sachets were found in his pocket
and he was brought to the police investigation for investigation.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the buy-bust operation conducted is valid due to the failure of the buybust team to comply with the procedural requirements as provided by law.
RULING:
Clearly, there was a break in the chain of custody of the seized substances. The failure
of the prosecution to establish the evidence's chain of custody is fatal to its case. Under
no circumstance can we consider or even safely assume that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the drug was properly preserved by the apprehending officers.
There can be no crime of illegal sale of a prohibited drug when nagging doubts persist
on whether the item confiscated was the same specimen examined and established to
be the prohibited drugs.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The 9 October 2008 decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02858 affirming with modification the judgment of
conviction dated 30 March 2007 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 61, Gumaca,
Quezon in Criminal Case No. 7743-G is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accusedappellant Antonio Magpayo is hereby ACQUITTED and ordered immediately released
4 | 2DLM|Constitutional Law
from detention unless his continued confinement is warranted from some other cause or
ground
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 185378
5 | 2DLM|Constitutional Law
appellant, Jennefer Carin y Donoga, unless she is being held for some other lawful
cause, and to inform this Court of action taken within five days.
SO ORDERED.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 182010
ISSUE:
Whether or not the police officers constituted a valid stop-and-frisk operation.
6 | 2DLM|Constitutional Law
RULING:
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED, with
the MODIFICATION that the penalty of imprisonment shall be twelve (12) years and one
(1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, as maximum. In all other respects, the
decision of the RTC in Criminal Case No. 02-2297 is AFFIRMED.
7 | 2DLM|Constitutional Law
8 | 2DLM|Constitutional Law
SO ORDERED
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 176066
9 | 2DLM|Constitutional Law
SO ORDERED.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 189278
July 26, 2010
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioners,
vs.
ELIZABETH MARCELINO y REYES, Respondents.
FACTS:
SPO1 Dela Cruz was part of the team that conducted a buy-bust operation
against accused-appellant Elizabeth to verify her involvement with illegal drug activities.
SPO1 Dela Cruz was designated as poseur-buyer and placed his initials on a five
hundred peso bill as boodle money and was able to confirm that she was indeed selling
illegal drugs, thus, being charged of the said crime as a ruling from the Trial Court.
Accused-appellant was dissatisfied with the Regional Trial Courts decision. She
appealed to the Court of Appeals and argued that the evidence presented was acquired
during her unlawful arrest.
ISSUE:
I
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT A
SEARCH WARRANT WAS NOT NECESSARY
II
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THE
INTEGRITY AND IDENTITY OF THE SHABU WAS PRESERVED
RULING:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03153 finding accused-appellant guilty of violation of Secs. 5 and
11 of Article II, RA 9165 is AFFIRMED IN TOTO.
10 | 2 D L M | C o n s t i t u t i o n a l L a w
SO ORDERED.
July 5, 2010
companion, who was later identified as Clarito Yanson (Clarito), were brought to the
MAC station at the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) for investigation. After
laboratory examination, the contents of the plastic sachet weighing 0.03 gram were
found positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu, a regulated drug. The test
on the three strips of aluminum foil also yielded positive for traces of shabu.
On the basis thereof, petitioner was correspondingly charged with illegal possession of
dangerous drugs. Clarito, on the other hand, was further investigated by the City
Prosecutors Office.
Petitioner denied the charge against him. He claimed that he was merely standing in
front of a store waiting for the change of his P500.00 bill when he was suddenly
accosted by the MAC team.
ISSUE
Reconsideration having been denied, petitioner is now before us raising a singular issue
on:
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF
THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT FINDING THE PETITIONER GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED.
Petitioner challenges the legality of his warrantless arrest by asserting that at the time
he was apprehended, he was not committing or attempting to commit an offense.
Petitioner argues that since his arrest was illegal, the eventual search on his person
was also unlawful. Thus, the illicit items confiscated from him are inadmissible in
evidence for being violative of his constitutional right against unreasonable searches
and seizure.
RULING
The threshold issue confronting us is whether the facts presented in this case make out
a legitimate instance of a warrantless arrest, i.e. under circumstances sufficient to
engender a reasonable belief that some crime was being or about to be committed or
had just been committed.
This petition for review assails the September 26, 2006 Decision 1 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 29248 which affirmed with modification the December
8, 2004 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong City, Branch 209,
finding petitioner guilty of violation of Section 16, Article III of Republic Act (RA) No.
6425, as amended (otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as
amended).
12 | 2 D L M | C o n s t i t u t i o n a l L a w
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the September 26, 2006 Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 29248 affirming the conviction of petitioner Salvador V.
Rebellion for the unlawful possession of 0.03 gram ofshabu and sentencing him to
suffer the penalty of six months of arresto mayor as minimum to two years, four months
and one day of prision correccional as maximum is affirmed.
SO ORDERED.
13 | 2 D L M | C o n s t i t u t i o n a l L a w
March 5, 2010
the petition and annulled the RTCs orders, first, in alleging merely that the NBI agents
unlawfully procured the search warrant without stating the facts that made the
procurement unlawful, the complaint failed to state a cause of action; and second, the
Del Rosarios were guilty of forum shopping in that they should have filed their claim for
damages against the NBI agents through a motion for compensation with the court that
issued the search warrant.
The Del Rosarios sought reconsideration of the decision but the CA denied it on
November 19, 2007, prompting them to file this petition for review.
ISSUES
1. Whether or not the CA correctly ruled that the complaint of the Del Rosarios
did not state a cause of action; and
2. Whether or not the CA correctly ruled that the Del Rosarios were guilty of
forum shopping.
RULING
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the Decision of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP 79496 dated June 29, 2007 and its Resolution dated
November 19, 2007 for the reasons stated in this Decision, with the MODIFICATION
that Civil Case 10584 is DISMISSED without prejudice.
15 | 2 D L M | C o n s t i t u t i o n a l L a w
THE FACTS
On October 16, 2002, the Taguig police conducted a buy-bust operation upon receiving
an information from an asset that a certain Zaida along with her boyfriend Leo
Ramirez y Acosta Leowas engaged in the illegal sale of Shabu. SPO2 Sanchez who
was a member of the buy-bust team acted as poseur-buyer and received three (3) one
hundred peso bills for use as marked money.
At around 10:00 in the evening of October 16, 2001, the buy-bust team together with the
asset proceeded to the target area where they saw the accused-appellant and Leo.
SPO2 Sanchez and the asset immediately approached the two while the rest of the buybust team watched from a distance. The asset introduced SPO2 as a buyer of shabu.
He (SPO2) then asked for a Php 300 worth of the same and gave them the marked
money. After handing him a sachet containing a substancesispected to be a shabu,
SPO2 lighted a cigarette giving the buy-bust team the signal to approach. The accusedappellant was then arrested together with Leo who was found in possession of one
plastic sachet suspected containing to be shabu. The RTC then ruled on the case
finding both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
16 | 2 D L M | C o n s t i t u t i o n a l L a w
The accused-appellant appealed the RTC decision to the CA, attacking the RTCs
reliance on the presumption of regularity that the RTC found to have attended the
conduct of the buy-bust operation by the police. She argued that no presumption of
regularity could arise considering that the police violated NAPOLCOM rules by using an
asset; the rules prohibit the deputation of private persons as PNP civilian agents. The
accused-appellant also pointed out the material inconsistencies in the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses that cast doubt on their credibility.In fact, the records clearly
reveal that the prosecution did not even acknowledge the procedural lapses committed
by the buy-bust team in the handling of the seized shabu.
THE ISSUE
Whether or not there is an irregularity with the prescribed procedure conducted by the
Taguig police in their buy-bust operation under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165
RULING
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby REVERSE and SET ASIDE the March
28, 2006 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00505 affirming the
decision of conviction dated October 27, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 259,
Paraaque City in Criminal Case Nos. 02-1236-7 for illegal sale of shabu under Section
5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. Accused-appellant ZAIDA KAMAD y AMBING is
hereby declared ACQUITTED and ordered immediately RELEASED from detention,
unless she is confined for any other lawful cause.
17 | 2 D L M | C o n s t i t u t i o n a l L a w