People vs. Collado

A warrantless arrest is lawful as in flagrante delicto when the arresting officer personally observes the overt act indicating the commission of a crime, such as a buy-bust operation where the accused sells dangerous drugs to a poseur-buyer; objections to the arrest are waived if not raised before arraignment or via motion to quash.

Non-compliance with the inventory and photographing requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165 does not invalidate the seizure or custody of dangerous drugs provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer.

Violation of Section 14 of RA 9165 (possession of drug paraphernalia) is malum prohibitum where the degree of participation is immaterial and the Revised Penal Code provisions on accessories do not apply; mere presence at the scene without actual possession or proof of conspiracy does not establish liability.

Spouses Marcelino and Myra Collado operated an electronics and appliance repair shop annexed to their residence at No. 32 R. Hernandez St., Barangay San Joaquin, Pasig City. Police received information that the couple sold shabu and maintained their residence as a drug den where users, including out-of-school youth, congregated for drug sessions.

The Buy-Bust Operation: On October 9, 2004, PO2 Richard Noble received information from a civilian asset that spouses Marcelino and Myra Collado were selling shabu and maintaining their residence as a drug den. After recording the report and conducting surveillance, a buy-bust team was formed with coordination from the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. PO2 Noble acted as poseur-buyer and was introduced to Marcelino by an asset. When Noble indicated he wanted "dalawang piso" (₱200.00 worth), Marcelino motioned for the marked money to be given to Myra, who accepted it. Marcelino then produced a small plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance from a metal container and handed it to Noble. While inspecting the contents, Noble noticed smoke coming from a table inside the house where seven persons were gathered.

The Arrest and Seizure: Upon Noble's pre-arranged signal, the backup team rushed in. Noble arrested Marcelino, frisked him, and confiscated the metal container containing another sachet of white crystalline substance, marking both sachets with "MCC-RNN October 9, 2004." SPO2 Bernardo Cruz and another officer entered the house and found Apelo, Cipriano, Ranada, Abache, Sumulong, Madarang, and Latario gathered around a table with various drug paraphernalia including an improvised water pipe, aluminum foil strips with traces of white substance, disposable lighters, and plastic sachets. Ranada was specifically caught holding a strip of aluminum foil used for smoking marijuana. All were arrested, advised of their rights, and brought to headquarters. Chemistry reports confirmed the seized substances tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride.

Defense Version: Marcelino claimed he was fixing a VCD player with his children when armed men rushed in and arrested them without basis. He alleged that at the police station, PO2 Noble demanded ₱50,000.00 to drop the charges and that he and others were made to drink bitter water that caused them to test positive for drugs. He theorized the arrest stemmed from a misunderstanding with a former police officer named Rey regarding a VCD player repair. Myra claimed she was shocked to see her husband arrested when she arrived at the scene. All accused denied any involvement with drugs.

Lower Court Findings: The RTC found the prosecution evidence credible, rejecting the defense of denial and frame-up. It convicted Marcelino and Myra of sale under Section 5, acquitted them of maintaining a den under Section 6, convicted Marcelino of possession under Section 11, and convicted all accused of possession of paraphernalia under Section 14, finding that the paraphernalia on the table were under the control of all present.

Appellate Court Findings: The CA affirmed the warrantless arrest as lawful in flagrante delicto. It sustained the convictions for sale and possession of drugs, and affirmed Ranada's conviction for paraphernalia as principal. However, regarding Cipriano, Latario, and the other co-accused, the CA found insufficient evidence of conspiracy and modified their liability from principals to accessories under Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code.

• Validity of Arrest and Search: Appellants argued that the arrest, search, and seizure were illegal for lack of a valid warrant, violating their constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
• Extortion and Frame-Up: Appellants maintained that PO2 Noble attempted to extort ₱50,000.00 from them in exchange for dropping the charges, and that the arrest was motivated by a personal grudge involving a former police officer named Rey. They claimed the drug evidence was planted.
• Chain of Custody: Appellants contended that the police failed to comply with Section 21 of RA 9165 because the confiscated drugs were not immediately photographed and inventoried in their presence with required witnesses, and that the police officers who handled the seized items were not presented to testify regarding the condition of the specimens.
• Degree of Participation: Cipriano and Latario argued that the CA erred in finding them liable as accessories for possession of paraphernalia when no conspiracy was established and they were not caught in actual possession of any contraband.

• Lawful Warrantless Arrest: Respondent countered that the arrest was valid as in flagrante delicto under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, as the police officers personally observed the sale of drugs and possession of paraphernalia. Any objection to the arrest was deemed waived for failure to raise it before arraignment.
• Presumption of Regularity: Respondent argued that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties applied to the police officers' actions, and that allegations of extortion and frame-up required clear and convincing evidence which appellants failed to present. No improper motive was shown to exist against the buy-bust team.
• Chain of Custody Compliance: Respondent maintained that non-compliance with the inventory and photographing requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165 was not fatal to the prosecution's case where justifiable grounds existed and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. The presentation of every person who handled the evidence was not required.
• Nature of the Offense: Respondent argued that violation of Section 14 of RA 9165 is malum prohibitum where the degree of participation is immaterial, though it conceded that the Revised Penal Code provisions on accessories could not apply to the offense.

• Warrantless Arrest: Whether the warrantless arrest and subsequent search were lawful.
• Presumption of Regularity: Whether the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties was overcome by appellants' allegations of extortion and frame-up.
• Chain of Custody: Whether the prosecution complied with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165.
• Criminal Liability for Paraphernalia: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in convicting Cipriano, Latario, and other co-accused as accessories for violation of Section 14 of RA 9165, and whether they could be held liable for possession of drug paraphernalia.

• Warrantless Arrest: The warrantless arrest was lawful as in flagrante delicto under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court because the arresting officers personally observed Marcelino and Myra selling shabu to the poseur-buyer and Ranada possessing drug paraphernalia. The arrest was effected immediately after the commission of the overt acts. Moreover, any objection to the illegality of the arrest was deemed waived for failure to move to quash the informations before arraignment.
• Search Incidental to Arrest: The search conducted on appellants' persons and the immediate vicinity was valid as incidental to a lawful arrest under Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. Evidence obtained during such a search is admissible.
• Presumption of Regularity: The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties was not overcome. Allegations of extortion and frame-up constitute serious accusations that require clear and convincing evidence and a showing of improper motive on the part of the police officers. Mere self-serving testimony without corroboration is insufficient to rebut the presumption. The defense failed to establish any connection between the alleged grudge involving "Rey" and the buy-bust team.
• Chain of Custody: Non-compliance with the physical inventory and photographing requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165 and its implementing rules does not render the seizure void and invalid provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. Here, PO2 Noble immediately marked the seized sachets, and the Request for Laboratory Examination properly inventoried the items. The prosecution is not required to present every person who had custody of the illegal drugs.
• Criminal Liability for Paraphernalia: Section 14 of RA 9165 punishes possession of drug paraphernalia as malum prohibitum, where the degree of participation is immaterial and all who perpetrated the prohibited act are penalized to the same extent. Consequently, Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code regarding accessories cannot be applied to determine the degree of participation. Furthermore, only Ranada was caught in actual possession and control of the aluminum foil. The other accused were merely present at the scene, and mere presence without proof of conspiracy or specific overt acts does not establish liability for possession. The prosecution failed to prove that Apelo, Abache, Cipriano, Latario, Madarang, and Sumulong exercised possession or control over the paraphernalia found on the table.

• Arrest in Flagrante Delicto — For a warrantless arrest under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court to be valid, 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. A buy-bust operation is a recognized form of arrest in flagrante delicto.
• Presumption of Regularity — Police officers are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Allegations of extortion, frame-up, or planting of evidence must be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence showing that the officers were inspired by improper motive or did not properly perform their duty; otherwise, police testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit.
• Chain of Custody Flexibility — Under Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165, non-compliance with the requirements for immediate physical inventory and photographing of seized drugs under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and 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. The prosecution need not present every person who had something to do with the arrest and seizure as witnesses.
• Malum Prohibitum and Degree of Participation — Illegal possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under Section 14 of RA 9165 is malum prohibitum. The degree of participation of the offenders is not considered; there is no distinction between principals, accomplices, or accessories. Section 98 of RA 9165 expressly provides that the Revised Penal Code shall not apply to the provisions of the Act, except in the case of minor offenders.
• Conspiracy and Mere Presence — Conspiracy must be established by proof of specific overt acts showing that the accused performed acts in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity. Mere presence at the scene of the crime, without more, does not imply conspiracy or establish possession of contraband.

• "Mere allegations and self-serving statements will not overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties accorded to police officers. There must be a showing of clear and convincing evidence to successfully rebut this presumption."
• "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."
• "[I]llegal possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs during parties, social gatherings or meetings under Section 14 of R.A. No. 9165 is a crime of malum prohibitum, that is, the act is made wrong or evil because there is a law prohibiting it... 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."

• People v. Capalad, G.R. No. 184174, April 7, 2009 — Cited for the standard that charges of extortion and frame-up require clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties.
• People v. Judge Laguio, Jr., 547 Phil. 296 (2007) — Cited for the definition of arrest in flagrante delicto requiring an overt act indicating commission of a crime within the view of the arresting officer.
• People v. Campos, G.R. No. 186526, August 25, 2010 — Cited for the rule that failure to inventory and photograph confiscated items is not fatal to the prosecution's case provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized substance were preserved.
• People v. Racho, G.R. No. 186529, August 3, 2010 — Cited for the rule that a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest is an exception to the requirement of a judicial warrant.

• Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 — Penalizes the sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation of dangerous drugs; basis for the charge against Marcelino and Myra Collado.
• Section 11, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 — Penalizes the illegal possession of dangerous drugs; basis for the charge against Marcelino Collado.
• Section 14, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 — Penalizes the possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs; basis for the charge against Ranada, Cipriano, Latario, et al.
• Section 21, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 — Mandates the physical inventory and photographing of seized drugs immediately after seizure in the presence of specified witnesses.
• Section 21(a), Article II, Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 — Provides that non-compliance with inventory requirements under justifiable grounds does not invalidate seizures if integrity and evidentiary value are preserved.
• Section 98, Republic Act No. 9165 — Provides that the Revised Penal Code shall not apply to the provisions of the Act, except in the case of minor offenders.
• Section 5(a), Rule 113, Rules of Court — Allows warrantless arrest when in the presence of the arresting officer, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.
• Section 13, Rule 126, Rules of Court — Allows search of a person lawfully arrested for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant.
• Article 19, Revised Penal Code — Defines accessories; held inapplicable to Section 14 of RA 9165.

Carpio, (Chairperson), Brion, Del Castillo, Perez, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ.