People vs. Pringas

Non-compliance with Sections 21 and 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 does not render an arrest illegal or the seized items inadmissible, provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved and any objection to the safekeeping of the items is not raised for the first time on appeal.

On 22 April 2003, a buy-bust team from the Station Drug Enforcement Unit of the Pasig City Police Station targeted accused-appellant along Beverly Street, Barangay Buting, Pasig City. Poseur-buyer PO1 Joselito Esmallaner, accompanied by an informant, purchased a sachet of shabu from accused-appellant for ₱100.00. Upon receiving the sachet, PO1 Esmallaner identified himself as a police officer and grabbed accused-appellant, who managed to run inside his house. Back-up officers followed and discovered three more sachets of shabu and various drug paraphernalia on a small chair inside the premises. Accused-appellant denied the buy-bust operation, claiming police officers forcibly entered his house without a warrant and planted nothing.

• The Buy-Bust Operation: SPO4 Danilo Tuaño designated PO1 Joselito Esmallaner as poseur-buyer. At 10:30 p.m., the team positioned near the target house. The informant knocked, and accused-appellant emerged, asking if the informant intended to buy. PO1 Esmallaner handed a ₱100.00 bill to accused-appellant, who went inside and returned with a heat-sealed transparent plastic bag containing white crystalline substance.
• The Arrest and Seizure: PO1 Esmallaner grabbed accused-appellant’s hand, retrieved the marked bill, and identified himself. Accused-appellant fled inside and attempted to lock the door. SPO3 Leneal Matias and the back-up team entered and saw three more heat-sealed plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance, along with drug paraphernalia (lighters, aluminum foil strips, improvised water pipe, burner, scissors, and plastic sachets), scattered on a small chair. The items were marked and forwarded to the crime laboratory. Chemistry Report No. D-733-03E confirmed the substances were positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).
• The Defense: Accused-appellant and his common-law wife, Gina Dean, denied the buy-bust occurred. They testified that four police officers kicked the door, entered without warrants, handcuffed accused-appellant, and searched the house without recovering anything. Accused-appellant claimed neighbors witnessed the violent entry but failed to present them as witnesses.

• Inadmissibility of Evidence: Accused-appellant argued that the evidence obtained during the buy-bust operation was inadmissible because it was procured in violation of Sections 21 and 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 and his constitutional right against illegal arrest.
• Lack of PDEA Coordination: Accused-appellant maintained that the buy-bust operation was conducted without the involvement, assistance, coordination, knowledge, or consent of the PDEA, in violation of Section 86 of Republic Act No. 9165.
• Non-Compliance with Inventory and Photography Requirements: Accused-appellant insisted that the apprehending team failed to immediately photograph the seized items and conduct a physical inventory in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a Department of Justice representative, and an elected public official, as mandated by Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.

• Validity of PDEA Coordination: The People, through the Solicitor General, countered that the Joint Affidavit of Arrest explicitly stated that coordination with the PDEA Metro Manila Regional Office was effected prior to the operation.
• Administrative Nature of Section 86: The Solicitor General argued that Section 86 is an administrative provision designating PDEA as the lead agency, and that the PNP retains the power to effect lawful arrests and seizures.
• Preservation of Integrity: The prosecution maintained that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved, rendering any non-compliance with Section 21 non-fatal, and that objections to the custody of the items were waived for being raised for the first time on appeal.

• Section 86 Compliance: Whether the lack of PDEA involvement in the buy-bust operation invalidates the arrest and renders the seized evidence inadmissible.
• Section 21 Compliance: Whether failure to comply with the physical inventory and photography requirements under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 renders the seized items inadmissible.

• Section 86 Compliance: The arrest was not invalidated by the alleged lack of PDEA involvement. Section 86 is an administrative provision designating PDEA as the lead agency for efficient law enforcement; it does not deprive the PNP of its investigative powers or authority to effect lawful arrests. The statute is silent on the consequences of failing to coordinate with the PDEA, and such silence cannot be interpreted as legislative intent to make the arrest illegal or the evidence inadmissible. Furthermore, the Joint Affidavit of Arrest showed coordination with the PDEA was actually made.
• Section 21 Compliance: Non-compliance with Section 21 is not fatal as long as there is justifiable ground and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. In this case, the items were immediately marked and sent to the crime laboratory, safeguarding their integrity. Moreover, any objection to the custody and disposition of the seized items cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; accused-appellant failed to question the safekeeping of the items during trial.

• Presumption of Regularity in the Performance of Official Duties — Law enforcement officers are presumed to have regularly performed their duties absent clear and convincing evidence of improper motive or failure to properly perform their duty. The presumption was applied to uphold the testimonies of the poseur-buyer and team leader, as accused-appellant testified they were complete strangers and presented no evidence of ill motive.
• Effect of Non-Compliance with Sections 21 and 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 — Non-compliance with the procedural requirements on custody and disposition of seized drugs (Section 21) and coordination with PDEA (Section 86) does not render an arrest illegal or the evidence inadmissible, provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. Objections to the safekeeping of items must be raised during trial and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

• "There is nothing in Republic Act No. 9165 which even remotely indicate the intention of the legislature to make an arrest made without the participation of the PDEA illegal and evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible. Moreover, the law did not deprive the PNP of the power to make arrests."
• "Non-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with Section 21 is not fatal as long as there is justifiable ground therefor, and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items, are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team."
• "Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection."

• People v. Sta. Maria, G.R. No. 171019 (2007) — Followed. The controlling precedent on the interpretation of Sections 21 and 86 of Republic Act No. 9165, establishing that non-compliance does not invalidate the arrest or render evidence inadmissible if integrity is preserved and objections are timely.
• People v. Mateo, G.R. Nos. 147678-87 (2004) — Followed. Cited as the procedural basis for the intermediate review of cases involving capital penalties by the Court of Appeals before elevation to the Supreme Court.
• People v. Khor, 366 Phil. 762 (1999) — Followed. Cited for the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs.

• Section 5, Republic Act No. 9165 — Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs. Applied to convict accused-appellant of selling 0.03 gram of shabu.
• Section 11, Republic Act No. 9165 — Possession of Dangerous Drugs. Applied to convict accused-appellant of possessing 0.29 gram of shabu.
• Section 12, Republic Act No. 9165 — Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs. Applied to convict accused-appellant of possessing drug paraphernalia.
• Section 21, Republic Act No. 9165 — Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs. Interpreted to mean that non-compliance with the inventory and photography requirements is not fatal if integrity and evidentiary value are preserved.
• Section 86, Republic Act No. 9165 — Transfer, Absorption, and Integration of All Operating Units on Illegal Drugs into the PDEA. Interpreted as an administrative provision that does not deprive the PNP of its power to effect lawful arrests.

Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Ruben T. Reyes.