Professional Documents
Culture Documents
People v. Cunanan (Warantless Arrest, Search and Seizure)
People v. Cunanan (Warantless Arrest, Search and Seizure)
RESOLUTION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
On appeal is the January 27, 2011 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04062, which affirmed the July 1, 2009 Decision 2 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 164 in Criminal Case No.
15143-D finding appellant Rafael Cunanan y David alias “Paeng Putol”
(appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II
of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002 and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay
a fine of P500,000.00 and the costs.
Antecedent Facts
Contrary to law.4
cralawlawlibrary
cralawred
Appellant pleaded not guilty upon his arraignment on April 30, 2007. Trial on
the merits immediately followed. In the course thereof, the testimony of
prosecution witness P/Sr. Insp. Lourdeliza G. Cejes (PSI Cejes), the Forensic
Chemist of the Eastern Police District (EPD) Crime Laboratory Office, was
dispensed with after the prosecution and the defense stipulated on the
following:
3. That the request together with the specimen were delivered by PO2
Michael Familara (PO2 Familara), recorded by PO1 Menese and
received by PSI Cejes;ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
At about 6:00 p.m. on October 13, 2006, a confidential informant (CI) went
to the EPD-District Intelligence Investigation Division (EPD-DIID)
Headquarters of Pasig City and informed PSI Abalos that a certain “Paeng
Putol,” later identified as the appellant, was engaged in selling illegal drugs
<>
Appellant denied the charge and interposed the defenses of denial and frame-
up/extortion. He alleged that after eating dinner on October 13, 2006, he
was watching a bingo game when three men arrived and held him by both
hands. They introduced themselves as policemen and told him that they
have a warrant for his arrest. They then handcuffed and frisked him and took
away his wallet and cellphone. The men brought him to a police station
where PO2 Familara threatened to file a case against him unless he gives the
police P50,000.00 as settlement. He failed to give the said amount.
Another witness for the defense, Genedina Guevarra Ignacio, testified that
she was outside her house between 7:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. of October 13,
2006 when she noticed three men passed by her in haste. The men
approached appellant who was then watching a bingo game across the street
and suddenly handcuffed him. She heard appellant asking the reason for his
arrest. She did not know what happened next since she already went inside
her house.
In its July 1, 2009 Decision,11 the trial court adjudged appellant guilty of the
crime charged, thus: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SO ORDERED.12 cralawlawlibrary
SO ORDERED.14 cralawlawlibrary
Hence, this appeal where appellant points out that: (1) there was no in
flagrante delicto arrest as he was not committing any crime at the time he
was apprehended but was merely watching a bingo game; (2) it was
inconceivable for him to openly sell illegal drugs as PO1 Gunda himself
testified that at the time of the alleged sale transaction there were many
people around the target area; (3) the apprehending officers failed to comply
with the guidelines on the proper custody of the seized dangerous drug,
specifically with respect to its inventory and taking of photograph, and this
casts doubt on whether the plastic sachet with white crystalline substance
identified in court was the same item allegedly seized and confiscated from
him; and (4) the testimonies of PO1 Gunda and PO2 Familara as to who was
in possession of the seized item from the target area up to the police station
were conflicting. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Our Ruling
Appellant assails the legality of his arrest contending that he was not
caught in flagrante delicto. Appellant’s contention fails to convince. The
testimony of PO1 Gunda who acted as the poseur-buyer in the buy-bust
operation clearly recounts how the sale transaction between him and
appellant transpired, viz: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
It is crystal clear from the foregoing that a sale transaction took place
between appellant and PO1 Gunda. That the said transaction involved the
illegal sale of dangerous drug was sufficiently shown by the prosecution
through its establishment of the following elements of the offense: “(1) the
identity of the buyer and the seller, object and consideration; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.”16 Undoubtedly,
appellant was lawfully arrested after he was caught in flagrante
delicto selling shabu in a buy-bust operation.
Appellant assails the proof of the corpus delicti by pointing out the arresting
officers’ non compliance with the procedure on the proper custody and
disposition of the seized item under Section 21 of RA 9165 and its
Implementing Rules and Regulations, particularly with respect to the
inventory and taking of photograph of the seized item. He contends that
while PO1 Gunda testified that an inventory of the seized item was made and
a photograph thereof was taken, such inventory and photograph were not
offered as evidence.
Here, the records reveal that after the consummation of the sale and the
consequent arrest of appellant, the plastic sachet sold by appellant was
marked with “Exh-A RCD/DG/10/13/06”22 by PO1 Gunda at the place where it
was confiscated. Thereafter, appellant and the seized drug were brought to
the police station. And as stipulated by the parties, a request for laboratory
examination of a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance with
marking “Exh-A RCD/DG/10/13/06” was prepared; the said request and
specimen were delivered by PO2 Familara and PO1 Menese to EPD Crime
Laboratory and received by PSI Cejes; and, a qualitative examination of the
specimen by PSI Cejes revealed that the same is positive for
metamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. During trial, the
marked plastic sachet was presented and identified by PO1 Gunda as the
same item sold to him by appellant.
From this sequence of events, the prosecution was able to show an unbroken
link in the chain of custody of the subject item which is the proof of
the corpus delicti. Its integrity and evidentiary value were shown not to have
been compromised notwithstanding the fact that the inventory and
photograph thereof which PO1 Gunda claimed to have been made were not
offered in evidence. Besides, “[t]he integrity of the evidence is presumed to
have been preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will or proof
that the evidence has been tampered with.”23 In this case, the defense failed
to prove ill motive on the part of the apprehending officers that would have
impelled them to fabricate a serious crime against appellant. Also, the
alleged inconsistency in the testimonies of PO1 Gunda and PO2 Familara as to
who was in possession of the item from the police station to the EPD crime
laboratory did not create any doubt that what was submitted for laboratory
examination and later presented in court as evidence was the same drug
actually sold by the appellant.
Penalty
Under RA 9165, the unauthorized sale of shabu, regardless of its quantity and
purity, carries with it the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine
ranging from P500,000.00 to P10 million. Here, the penalty of life
imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 imposed upon appellant by the RTC
and affirmed by the CA are in order. It must be added, however, that
appellant shall not be eligible for parole.24
cralawred
WHEREFORE, the January 27, 2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04062, which affirmed the July 1, 2009 Decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 164 in Criminal Case No. 15143-D
finding appellant Rafael Cunanan y David guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and sentencing him
to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00,
is AFFIRMED with the modification that appellant shall not be eligible for
parole.
SO ORDERED. cralawlawlibra
That the said transaction involved the illegal sale of dangerous drug was
sufficiently shown by the prosecution through its establishment of the
following elements of the offense: “(1) the identity of the buyer and the
seller, object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment therefor.”16 Undoubtedly, appellant was lawfully arrested
after he was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu in a buy-bust
operation. From this sequence of events, the prosecution was able to show
an unbroken link in the chain of custody of the subject item which is the proof
of the corpus delicti. Its integrity and evidentiary value were shown not to
have been compromised notwithstanding the fact that the inventory and
photograph thereof which PO1 Gunda claimed to have been made were not
offered in evidence. Besides, “[t]he integrity of the evidence is presumed to
have been preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will or proof
that the evidence has been tampered with.” In this case, the defense failed
to prove ill motive on the part of the apprehending officers that would have
impelled them to fabricate a serious crime against appellant.