Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SCD 2018 0019 People of The Philippines Vs Benito Palaras y Lapu Os
SCD 2018 0019 People of The Philippines Vs Benito Palaras y Lapu Os
~~
:nov.~
\
;ffffi.anila
JUL 2 6 2018
THIRD DIVISION
x--------------------------~~ ~~ - - - - - - - - - - - :x
DECISION
MARTIRES, J.:
On Official Leave.
Rollo, pp. 4-19.
CA rollo, pp. 52-65.
Otherwise known as An Act Instituting the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, Repealing
Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended, Providing
Fu11her Funds Therefor, and for Other Purposes.
Decision 2 G.R. No. 2-19582
THE FACTS
4
CONTRARY TO LAW.
CONTRARY TO LA W. 5
brother, Joemarie Palaras, who had been previously arrested for a similar
offense.
The marked bills were given by P02 Bernil to the confidential asset,
who was to act as the poseur-buyer. The poseur-buyer proceeded to Burgos
Street, Barangay Rizal, Silay City, ahead of the other members of the buy-
bust team, to meet accused-appellant. The poseur-buyer was instructed to
immediately call P02 Berni! the moment he saw accused-appellant at the
said place. Shortly after the poseur-buyer made the call that he had already
seen accused-appellant in the area, the other members of the buy-bust team
proceeded there. They positioned themselves a few meters away from where
the poseur-buyer was, such that their presence would not be noticed by
M
accused-appellant but sufficient for them to clearly see him and the poseur-
buyer.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 219582
Thereafter, the marked plastic sachets were brought to the PNP Crime
Laboratory NOPPO at Bacolod City, for laboratory examination.
report found that all the aforementioned specimen tested "positive" for
methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug. 7
Jenny also claimed that while her uncle was being handcuffed, a bottle
cap was inse11ed by P02 Bemil into her uncle's pocket. She observed that
the bottle cap contained a small transparent sachet which fell to the floor and
which P02 Bemil picked up. After the body search, the crowd applauded as
the seized items were seen to have been purposely placed in accused-
appellant's pocket. Jenny did not go with her uncle when the latter wasfo!
brought to the police station, but she immediately reported the incident to
her father. 8
Id. at 104-105.
Decision 7 G.R. No. 219582
the National Bilibid Prisons, where he shall serve the sentence imposed on him
by the Court.
NO COSTS.
SO ORDERED. 9
In rendering its judgment of conviction, the RTC ruled that the sale
and possession by accused-appellant of the drug were sufficiently
established by the prosecution, and the identity and integrity of the drug
seized were duly preserved.
The CA Ruling
The CA denied the appeal and affirmed the decision of the R TC, viz:
SO ORDERED. 10
ISSUE
jJ4{
WARRANTED ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S CONVICTION FOR THE
CRIMES CHARGED.
9
Id. at 63-64.
10
Id. at 165.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 219582
P02 Bemil's testimony shows that the members of the buy-bust team
apprehended accused-appellant based on the pre-arranged signal from the
poseur-buyer that the transaction with accused-appellant had been fir
11
People v. Bartolome, 703 Phil. l 48, l 6 l (2013 ).
12
People v. Andaya, 745 Phil. 237, 246 (2014).
u Id. at 247.
14
People v. Ismael, G.R. No. 208093, 20 February 2017.
15 ld.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 219582
xx xx
xx xx
16
TSN, 27 September 2012, p. 12.
17
TSN, 13 September 2012, pp. 19-20.
Decision 10 G.R. No. 219582
of the suspected one sachet of shabu, he placed his hand over his
head and we proceeded to arrest the subject person.
Q. You said you saw your poseur-buyer and the accused transacting
with each other. Were you in front of them?
A. No. I was near the Pugzone Store, and he could not see us.
In People v. Amin, 21 this Court did not deem as eyewitness account the
testimony of the prosecution witnesses who were ten ( 10) meters away from
the transaction. Similarly, in People v. Guzon, 22 a police officer who admitted
that he was seven (7) to eight (8) meters away from the actual transaction was
not considered an eyewitness to the crime.
18
Id. at 20-21.
19
People v. Berdadero, 636 Phil. 199, 213 (2010).
20
Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 punishes "any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell,
trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any
dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity
involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions." Under the law, selling was any act "of
giving away any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical whether for money
or any other consideration;" while delivering was any act "of knowingly passing a dangerous drug to
another, personally or otherwise, and by any means, with or without consideration."
21
G.R. No. 215942, 18 January 2017, 814 SCRA 639.
2~
719 Phil. 441 (2013).
Decision 11 G.R. No. 219582
It can also be gleaned from the foregoing testimonies that the members
of the buy-bust team primarily relied on the pre-arranged signal in order to
effect the arrest.
Since the poseur-buyer was not presented to testify on the details of the
subject transaction, the act of accused-appellant as witnessed by the members
of the buy-bust team cannot, therefore, be limited to illegal sale of drugs. It was
capable of multiple explanations. It is a well-established rule that "if the
inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more interpretations,
one of which being consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other
or others consistent with his guilt, then the evidence in view of the
constitutional presumption of innocence has not fulfilled the test of moral
certainty and is thus insufficient to support a conviction. " 25
The seizure of the items marked as "BIT2" "BIT3 " "BIT4" and
' ' '
"BITS" was made after a warrantless search on accused-appellant incidental
to his arrest based on the buy-bust operation. However, as discussed earlier,
since the sale transaction was not sufficiently established and no crime for th~
23
Supra note 12.
24
Id. at 249.
25
Franco v. People, 780 Phil. 36, 50 (2016).
26
People v. Ismael, supra note 14.
Decision 12 G.R. No. 219582
SO ORDERED.
27
In Veridiano v. l'eople, G.R. No. 200370, 7 June 2017, this Court reiterated that "a search incidental to
a lawful arrest requires that there must first be a lawful arrest before a search is made. Otherwise
stated, a lawfu I arrest must precede the search; 'the process cannot be reversed."'
Dt:cision 13 G.R. No. 219582
WE CONCUR:
ociate Justice
Chairperson
G.- GESMUNDO
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been _r,tached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the ol3Plion of the
Court's Division.
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division
Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
Di' i~i(~
\\iLHl.l)th(i ,-fl
~:fel·I:.
<. ·· '" :·
Third l>i ·. ·.,
JUL 2 6 2018