People vs. Robelo

Non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 does not invalidate a drug conviction where the objection is raised for the first time on appeal and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved.

Acting on information from a civilian informer that a certain alias "Kalbo" (Robelo) was selling illegal drugs at Parola Compound, the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Force organized a buy-bust operation. PO2 Arnel Tubbali was designated as the poseur-buyer and was provided a marked P100 bill. Upon reaching the target area, the poseur-buyer was introduced to Robelo and his companion, Teddy Umali, as a prospective buyer. The poseur-buyer handed the marked money to Umali, who then ordered Robelo to hand over one plastic sachet of shabu, which Robelo did. After the pre-arranged signal was given, the police arrested Robelo, and a subsequent frisk yielded another plastic sachet of shabu from his pocket.

• The Buy-Bust Operation: On March 26, 2004, police officers organized a buy-bust operation targeting appellant based on civilian information. PO2 Tubbali acted as poseur-buyer, armed with a marked P100 bill. Upon reaching Parola Compound, the civilian asset introduced PO2 Tubbali to appellant and Teddy Umali as a prospective buyer. PO2 Tubbali handed the marked money to Umali, who then ordered appellant to give the poseur-buyer one plastic sachet of shabu. Appellant complied and handed over the sachet.
• The Apprehension and Seizure: After receiving the sachet, PO2 Tubbali made a pre-arranged signal, prompting the back-up team to rush in and arrest appellant and Umali. During a body frisk, PO2 Conrado Juano recovered another plastic sachet of shabu from appellant's pocket. The seized items were marked at the precinct and subsequently examined by a forensic chemist, who confirmed the contents as methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
• The Defense: Appellant denied the charges and claimed that he was repairing the floor of his mother’s house when two police officers in civilian clothes entered, ransacked the closet, and handcuffed him without reason. He alleged that at the precinct, the officers demanded P10,000.00 in exchange for his liberty.

• Validity of the Buy-Bust Operation: Petitioner argued that the buy-bust operation was invalid due to the absence of prior surveillance or test-buy, and that it was contrary to human nature for a seller to transact with a complete stranger without speaking.
• Chain of Custody Non-Compliance: Petitioner asserted that the apprehending officers failed to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 regarding the physical inventory and photocopy of the seized items, thereby casting doubt on the identity of the seized items and the validity of the arrest.
• Presumption of Innocence: Petitioner maintained that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, invoking alibi and frame-up as his defense.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Respondent relied on the trial court's assessment of the prosecution witnesses' credibility and the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the police officers.
• Validity of the Operation: Respondent argued that the buy-bust operation was conducted with due regard to legal safeguards and that drug peddlers are known to sell their wares to strangers with increasing casualness.
• Integrity of Seized Items: Respondent maintained that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved despite procedural lapses, and that objections to such lapses were belatedly raised.

• Validity of the Buy-Bust Operation: Whether the absence of prior surveillance and the alleged unnatural sale to a stranger invalidate the buy-bust operation.
• Existence of Conspiracy: Whether conspiracy existed between the appellant and his companion in the sale of illegal drugs.
• Effect of Section 21 Non-Compliance: Whether the failure to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 renders the arrest illegal and the seized items inadmissible, especially when raised for the first time on appeal.

• Validity of the Buy-Bust Operation: The buy-bust operation was upheld. There is no prescribed textbook method for conducting a buy-bust operation, and the absence of prior surveillance does not affect its legality provided constitutional rights are observed. Selling drugs to strangers is common among drug peddlers, and the law does not require familiarity between vendor and vendee as an element of the crime.
• Existence of Conspiracy: Conspiracy was established. The concerted action between appellant and Umali—where Umali received the money and ordered appellant to hand over the shabu, which the latter did—demonstrated a unity of mind and purpose. The act of one conspirator is the act of all, making appellant liable as a co-principal regardless of the degree of participation.
• Effect of Section 21 Non-Compliance: The objection was rejected. Objections to evidence, such as non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Furthermore, non-compliance with Section 21 does not invalidate the arrest or render the items inadmissible if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, which was the case here.

• Inference of Conspiracy — Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime suggesting concerted action and unity of purpose. Applied to find that Umali taking the money and ordering appellant to deliver the drugs showed a unity of mind, making appellant a co-conspirator.
• Objections to Evidence on Appeal — Objections to the admissibility of evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; a party must state the objection in the form required at the trial court level to reject the evidence.
• Integrity and Evidentiary Value of Seized Items — Non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 does not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized inadmissible, provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved.

• "Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime suggesting concerted action and unity of purpose among them."
• "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."
• "What is essential is the ‘preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.’"

• People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 172975, August 8, 2007, 529 SCRA 519 — Followed. The absence of prior surveillance or test-buy does not affect the legality of a buy-bust operation as there is no textbook method for conducting one.
• People v. Salazar, 334 Phil. 556 (1997) — Followed. Buy-bust operations deserve judicial sanction if carried out with due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards.
• People v. Sta. Maria, G.R. No. 171019, February 23, 2007, 516 SCRA 621; People v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 184804, June 18, 2009, 589 SCRA 625; People v. Lazaro, Jr., G.R. No. 186418, October 16, 2009, 604 SCRA 250 — Followed. Reiterated the rule that objections to non-compliance with Sections 21 and 86 of R.A. No. 9165 cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
• People v. Guiara, G.R. No. 186497, September 17, 2009, 600 SCRA 310 — Followed. Non-compliance with Section 21 does not render the arrest illegal or the items inadmissible if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved.

• Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 — Penalizes the sale of dangerous drugs with life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10 million, irrespective of the quantity and purity of the substance. Applied to impose life imprisonment and a P500,000.00 fine for the sale of 0.019 gram of shabu.
• Section 11(3), Article II, R.A. No. 9165 — Penalizes the possession of less than five grams of shabu with imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from P300,000.00 to P400,000.00. Applied to impose an indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months, and a P300,000.00 fine for the possession of 0.013 gram of shabu.
• Section 21, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 — Prescribes the procedure for the physical inventory and photograph of seized items immediately after seizure and confiscation. The Court ruled that non-compliance does not invalidate the seizure where the integrity and evidentiary value of the items are preserved, and objections to such non-compliance cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

Carpio (Chairperson), Brion, Peralta, Perez