compiled consti

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 190179 October 20, 2010PEOPLE 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 | 2 D L M | C o n s t i t u t i o n a l L a w

The accused-appellantsdisputed the court’s decision finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt, the crime charged. They argued that the lower court erred in admitting the seized dangerous drugs as evidence considering that the arrest was unlawful. Further, they contend that the prosecution failed to establish every link in the chain of custody of the drugs.

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 accused-

appellants remains unbroken.


WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The CA Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No.

03338 finding accused-appellants Edward R. Feliciano and Anita G. Laurora guilty of

the crimes charged is AFFIRMED IN TOTO.

SO ORDERED.



Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 187069 October 20, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs.ANTONIO MAGPAYAO, Respondent.

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 buy-bust 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. Accused-appellant Antonio Magpayo is hereby ACQUITTED and ordered immediately released from detention unless his continued confinement is warranted from some other cause or ground



Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 185378 September 27, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs.JEBBEFER CARIN y DONOGA and MAE-ANN, Respondent

FACTS:

A buy-bust operation was conducted in the appellant’s residence at Davila Street, Barangay Santa Cruz, Makati City on November 27, 2003 at around 4:00pm due to an information received that appellant is selling shabu every afternoon in Davila Street. Mergal, as the poseur-buyer, gave her a marked P100.00 bill and a place of sachet was given to him in exchange. The evidence was confirmed by the laboratory as shabu and the appellant was also asked for a urine test where it shows that she was positive. But, appellant alleged that she was framed-up.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the failure of the buy-bust team to observe proper procedure stated in R.A. No. 9165 can be used as a basis against her by the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING:

The foregoing observations leave it unnecessary for the Court to still pass on appellant's defenses of denial and frame-up even if they are inherently weak and commonly proffered in cases for violation of RA No. 9165.

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 27, 2008 in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 02343 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant, Jennefer Carin y Donoga, isACQUITTED of the crime charged.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Director of the Correctional Institute

for Women, Mandaluyong City who is ORDERED to cause the immediate release of

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.



Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 182010 August 25, 2010

SUSAN ESQUILLO y ROMINES, Petitioners, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

FACTS:

Petitioner, Susan Esquillo, challenges the November 27, 2007 Decision of the

Court of Appeals for being convicted for the possession of methamphetamine

hydrochloride or shabu. According to the documentary evidence and testimony of PO1

Alvin Cruzin, due to the informant’s tip, the said police officer alongside with PO2 Angel

Aguas, conducted surveillance on the activities of an alleged notorious snatcher.

It is when PO1 Cruzin saw the petitioner placing a yellow cigarette case what

appeared to be a small heat-sealed transparent plastic which contains white substance

that he want up to her and introduced himself as a police officer and inquired about the

plastic sachet. Petitioner, however, attempted to flee in her house but PO1 Cruzin timely

restrained her from doing so. But from the petitioner’s side of the story, she stated that

the police officers barged into her house and when asked if she knew one “Ryan” the

notorious snatcher, she replied in the negative, it was then she was forced to go with

them at the Pasay City Police Station, where she was also detained.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the police officers constituted a valid “stop-and-frisk” operation.

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.



Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 185848 August 16, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs.MICHAEL SEMBRANO y CASTRO, Respondent.

FACTS:

At around 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon, an informant came to the Novalicjes Police Station saying that the accused, Michael Sembrano, is having illicit drug trade operation in the area of Gulod in Novaliches, Quezon City. A buy-bust team was formed waiting for the arrival of the accused. PO1 Manaol, as the poseur-buyer met with the accused and the exchange of transaction was done. And the accused was arrested due to the illegal possession of drugs and selling drugs not authorized by law.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the arresting of the accused in the buy-bust operation is valid even if there is no valid search warrant and warrant of arrest is presented.

RULING:

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the 18 June 2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. HC No. 02762, finding appellant MICHAEL SEMBRANO y CASTRO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. As modified, appellant is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) in Criminal Case No. Q-04-128371, for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, of Republic Act No. 9165. The penalties imposed in Criminal Case No. Q-04-128370, for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 15, of Republic Act No. 9165, is sustained.

SO ORDERED



Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 176066 August 11, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs.ESTELA TUAN y BALLUDDA, Respondent.

FACTS:

On January 24, two informants namely, Jerry Tudlong and and Frank Lad-ing reported to SP02 Fernandez, that a certain Estela Tuan had been selling marijuana at Barangay Gabriela Silang, Baguio City. The police officers, with the informants, went to the house of accused-appellant to verify the report. The informants were given P300 to buy marijuana, afterwards presented the marijuana leaves to the police officers after they have bought them. They were able to secure a Search Warrant which was granted by Judge Cortes of MTTC, being satisfied of the existence of probable cause.

According to the police officers, they searched the house with the accused-appellant’s father, Magno, after he was shown the search warrant and found a movable cabinet in accused-appellant’s room, below which the brick of marijuana was placed. However, Tuan’s husband attestedthat the items confiscated were found in the vacant room which was previously occupied by boarders and that the police officer pulled something under the bed not knowing of its content.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the testimony of the accused-appellant’s husband lacks credibility.

RULING:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated September 21, 2006 of

the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00381, is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. No

costs.

SO ORDERED.



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.

SO ORDERED.



Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 175700 July 5, 2010

SALVADOR V. REBELLION, Petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

On July 31, 2000,an Information was filed charging petitioner Salvador V. Rebellion with violation of Section 16, Article III of RA 6425, as amended, the accusatory portion thereof reads:

That on or about the 27th day of July 2000, in the City of Mandaluyong, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not having been lawfully authorized to possess or otherwise use any regulated drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession and under his custody and control one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram of white crystalline substance and one (1) piece of aluminum foil strip with trace of white crystalline substance, which were found positive [for] Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly known as "shabu", a regulated drug, without the corresponding license and prescription, in violation of the above cited law.

Contrary to law.

When arraigned on September 6, 2000, petitioner entered a plea of not guilty. After pre-trial, trial on the merits forthwith commenced.

At about 4:40 in the afternoon of July 27, 2000, PO3 George Garcia (PO3 Garcia) and PO3 Romeo Sotomayor, Jr. (PO3 Sotomayor), together with Michael Fermin and Joseph Apologista, all members of the Mayor’s Action Command (MAC) of Mandaluyong City, were on routine patrol along M. Cruz St., Barangay Mauway, when they chanced upon two individuals chanting and in the act of exchanging something. The police officers introduced themselves and then inquired from petitioner what he was holding. Petitioner took out from his possession three strips of aluminum foil which PO3 Garcia confiscated. PO3 Sotomayor also found on petitioner a plastic sachet which contained white crystalline substance which looked like tawas. Suspecting that the substance was "shabu", he confiscated the plastic sachet. Petitioner and his 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 Prosecutor’s 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 Decision1 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).

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.



Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 180595 March 5, 2010

ARTHUR DEL ROSARIO and ALEXANDER DEL ROSARIO, Petitioners, vs.HELLENOR D. DONATO, JR. and RAFAEL V. GONZAGA, Respondents.

FACTS

On January 23, 2002 Philip Morris Products, Inc. (Philip Morris) wrote the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), requesting assistance in curtailing the proliferation of fake Marlboro cigarettes in Angeles City, Pampanga. After doing surveillance work in that city, respondent Hellenor Donato, Jr., the NBI agent assigned to the case, succeeded in confirming the storage and sale of such fake cigarettes at the house at 51 New York Street, Villasol Subdivision, Angeles City, that belonged to petitioner Alexander del Rosario.

On March 5, 2002 respondent Donato applied for a search warrant with Branch 57 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Angeles City to search the subject premises. But it took a week later or on March 12, 2002 for the RTC to hear the application and issue the search warrant. Although Donato felt that the delayed hearing compromised the operation, the NBI agents led by respondent Rafael V. Gonzaga proceeded to implement the warrant. Their search yielded no fake Marlboro cigarettes.

Subsequently, petitioners Alexander and Arthur del Rosario (the Del Rosarios) filed a complaint for P50 million in damages against respondents NBI agents Donato and Gonzaga and two others before the RTC of Angeles City, Branch 62, in Civil Case 10584. On August 6, 2003 respondents NBI agents answered the complaint with a motion to dismiss on the grounds of: a) the failure of the complaint to state a cause of action; b) forum shopping; and c) the NBI agents’ immunity from suit, they being sued as such agents. The RTC denied the motion on March 25, 2003. The NBI agents filed a motion for reconsideration but the RTC denied the same on June 27, 2003.

Dissatisfied, respondents NBI agents filed a special civil action of certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP 79496. On June 29, 2007 the latter court granted the petition and annulled the RTC’s 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.



Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 174198 January 19, 2010

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.ZAIDA KAMAD y AMBING, Accused-Appellant.

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 “Leo”was 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 buy-bust 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 accused-appellant 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.

The accused-appellant appealed the RTC decision to the CA, attacking the RTC’s 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, Parañaque 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.


compiled consti

Documents