People v. Collado

Facts:

PO2 Noble received information from a civilian asset that spouses Marcelino and Myra were engaged in selling shabu and that drug users, including out-of-school youth, were using their residence in 32 R. Hernandez St., San Joaquin, Pasig City, for their drug sessions. A buy-bust operation team was thereafter formed. The asset introduced PO2 Noble to Marcelino as a regular buyer of shabu. Myra accepted the money. Marcelino then took from his pocket a small metal container from which he brought out a small plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance and gave it to PO2 Noble.

Meanwhile, SPO2 Cruz and another police officer went inside the house of Marcelino and Myra, where they found Apelo, Cipriano, Ranada, Abache, Sumulong, Madarang and Latario gathered around a table littered with various drug paraphernalia such as an improvised water pipe, strips of aluminum foil with traces of white substance, disposable lighters, and plastic sachets. A strip of aluminum foil used for smoking marijuana was recovered from Ranada.

RTC found Marcelino and Myra guilty of Secs. 5, 6, and 11 of RA 9165. Apelo, Cipriano, Ranada, Abache, Sumulong, Madarang and Latario are guilty of Sec. 14 of RA 9165. CA affirmed the decision with modification that Apelo, Abache, Sumulong, and Madarang are accessories, not principals.

Issue:

Whether or not irregularities attended the arrest, detention, and the procedure in handling the specimen seized from them

Held:

The arrest of the appellants was an arrest in flagrante delicto made in pursuance of Sec. 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. The arrest was effected after Marcelino and Myra performed the overt act of selling to PO2 Noble the sachet of shabu and Ranada of having in his control and custody illegal drug paraphernalia.

As for the specimen, the failure of the police officers to inventory and photograph the confiscated items are not fatal to the prosecution's cause, provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized substance were preserved, as in this case.

In Rañada’s case, he was actually caught having custody and control of the confiscated drug paraphenalia intended for smoking, injecting, etc. into one's body. It was also indubitably shown that he failed to present authority to possess the prohibited articles, much less, an explanation of his possession thereof. However, as regards the other accused who were seen in the company of Rañada, the evidence of conspiracy against them was insufficient. They were in close proximity to Rañada at the time and place of the incident. But mere presence at the scene of the crime does not imply conspiracy. The prosecution failed to show specific overt acts that would link these accused to Ranada's possession of the said contrabands. The CA erred in ruling that they were accessories to the crime.