In drug-related cases, the Philippine Supreme Court emphasizes the presumption of regularity in police operations. This means courts assume police officers are performing their duties legally unless proven otherwise. The accused must present clear and convincing evidence to challenge this presumption. This case clarifies how allegations of irregularities during arrest and evidence handling can be addressed in court, and what it takes to overturn the presumption that police officers acted lawfully in drug enforcement operations.

Unraveling a Drug Bust: Can Accusations of Extortion and Procedural Lapses Taint a Conviction?

The case of People of the Philippines vs. Marcelino Collado, et al., G.R. No. 185719, involves multiple individuals charged with violations of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The central issue revolves around a buy-bust operation conducted by the police, leading to the arrest of Marcelino Collado and Myra Collado for selling illegal drugs and maintaining a drug den. Several other individuals, including Mark Cipriano, Samuel Sherwin Latario, and Reynaldo Ranada, were also apprehended for possession of drug paraphernalia. The accused challenged the legality of their arrest, alleging irregularities in the handling of evidence, and accusing the police of extortion.

The accused argued that the buy-bust operation was invalid due to the lack of a warrant of arrest, non-compliance with the procedures outlined in Section 21 of RA 9165 regarding the handling of seized drugs, and alleged extortion attempts by the arresting officers. They claimed these irregularities undermined the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the police. The defense also raised questions about the chain of custody of the seized drugs, suggesting that the prosecution failed to establish the corpus delicti, or the body of the crime, due to inconsistencies in how the evidence was handled.

The Supreme Court, in its decision, addressed these issues systematically. Regarding the warrantless arrest, the Court cited Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, which allows for lawful arrests without a warrant when a person is caught in flagrante delicto, meaning in the act of committing an offense. The Court found that the arrest of Marcelino and Myra Collado was valid because they were caught selling shabu (methamphetamine hydrochloride) to a police officer during the buy-bust operation. Similarly, Reynaldo Ranada was arrested while in possession of drug paraphernalia. The Court emphasized that to effect a valid arrest in flagrante delicto, two requisites must concur: “(1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and, (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.” (People v. Judge Laguio, Jr., 547 Phil. 296, 329 (2007)).

Furthermore, the Court noted that the accused had waived their right to question the legality of their arrest by failing to object before their arraignment. The Court explained that under the Constitution, a search and seizure must be carried out with a judicial warrant; otherwise, it becomes unreasonable, and any evidence obtained is inadmissible. However, this rule admits exceptions, including a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest. Since the arrest of the appellants was lawful, the subsequent search and seizure of evidence were also deemed valid.

Addressing the allegations of extortion, the Court reiterated that such claims require clear and convincing evidence. The Court stated,

“Charges of extortion and frame-up are frequently made in this jurisdiction. Courts are, thus, cautious in dealing with such accusations, which are quite difficult to prove in light of the presumption of regularity in the performance of the police officers’ duties. To substantiate such defense, which can be easily concocted, the evidence must be clear and convincing and should show that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty. Otherwise, the police officers’ testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit.” (People v. Capalad, G.R. No. 184174, April 7, 2009, 584 SCRA 717, 727).

The Court found no credible evidence to support the extortion claims, noting that the defense presented only self-serving testimonies without establishing any improper motive on the part of the police officers. The Court also considered it unlikely that the police would conduct a buy-bust operation over a minor misunderstanding involving a VCD player.

Regarding the chain of custody, the Court acknowledged the procedural requirements outlined in Section 21 of RA 9165, which mandates the inventory and photographing of seized drugs in the presence of the accused and representatives from the media and the Department of Justice. However, the Court emphasized that non-compliance with these requirements is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution’s case, provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. This principle is outlined in Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165:

“Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.”

In this case, the Court found that the marking of the seized sachets of shabu by the arresting officer immediately after confiscation, coupled with the positive results of the laboratory examination, sufficiently established the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs. The Court also clarified that the non-presentation of the forensic chemist who conducted the laboratory examination as a witness was not a critical issue, as there is no requirement to present every person who had custody of the drugs as a witness.

The Court also addressed the charges against the other accused, specifically regarding the possession of drug paraphernalia. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) had found all the accused guilty, reasoning that the paraphernalia were found on a table around which they were gathered, thus implying control over the items. The Court of Appeals (CA) modified this ruling, finding Ranada guilty as a principal while the others were deemed accessories. The Supreme Court disagreed with the CA’s assessment regarding the co-accused.

The Court stated that,

“Since violation of Section 14 of R.A. No. 9165 is a crime of mala prohibita, the degree of participation of the offenders is not considered. All who perpetrated the prohibited act are penalized to the same extent. There is no principal or accomplice or accessory to consider.”

Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled that only Ranada should be held liable for violating Section 14 of RA 9165, as he was the only one caught in possession of drug paraphernalia. The other accused were acquitted of this charge due to the lack of evidence linking them directly to the possession or control of the paraphernalia. This distinction highlights the importance of proving actual possession or control of illegal items to establish guilt under the law.

FAQs

What is a buy-bust operation?	A buy-bust operation is a law enforcement technique where police officers pose as buyers of illegal substances to catch drug dealers in the act.
What does “in flagrante delicto” mean?	“In flagrante delicto” is a Latin term meaning “caught in the act.” It refers to a situation where a person is caught committing a crime, allowing for a warrantless arrest.
What is the chain of custody in drug cases?	The chain of custody refers to the chronological documentation of the seizure, transfer, and analysis of evidence, ensuring its integrity and admissibility in court.
What is the legal significance of Section 21 of RA 9165?	Section 21 of RA 9165 outlines the procedures for handling seized drugs, including inventory and photographing, to maintain the integrity of the evidence. Non-compliance is not fatal if integrity is preserved.
What does the presumption of regularity mean for police officers?	The presumption of regularity means that courts assume police officers perform their duties legally and in accordance with procedures unless there is clear evidence to the contrary.
What is the role of corpus delicti in proving a crime?	Corpus delicti refers to the body of the crime, meaning the prosecution must prove that a crime was committed and that the accused was the one who committed it.
What is the difference between principal and accessory in this case?	In this case, the distinction between principal and accessory was deemed irrelevant for possessing drug paraphernalia, as the law penalizes all participants equally. The court ultimately acquitted those not in direct possession.
What evidence is needed to prove extortion by police officers?	To prove extortion by police officers, there must be clear and convincing evidence, not just self-serving testimonies, showing that the officers were motivated by improper reasons.

This case illustrates the importance of adhering to proper procedures in drug enforcement operations and the high burden of proof required to overcome the presumption of regularity accorded to law enforcement officers. It also clarifies the nuances of proving possession and control of drug paraphernalia under RA 9165, underscoring the need for concrete evidence linking individuals to the illegal items.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People vs. Collado, G.R. No. 185719, June 17, 2013