People Vs Mirasol Digest

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs SPO3 SANGKI ARA y MIRASOL, MIKE TALIB y MAMA,
and JORDAN MUSA y BAYAN, accused-appellants.

G.R. No. 185011
December 23, 2009
VELASCO, JR., J.
FACTS:
APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.
In the morning of December 20, 2002, a confidential informant (CI) came to the Heinous Crime
Investigation Section (HCIS) of the Davao City Police Department and reported that three (3) suspected
drug pushers had contacted him for a deal involving six (6) plastic sachets of shabu.
He was instructed to go that same morning to St.Peter’s College at Toril, Davao City and look for an
orange Nissan Sentra car. Police Chief Inspector Fulgencio Pavo, Sr. immediately formed a buy-bust
team composed of SPO3 Reynaldo Capute, SPO4 Mario Galendez, SPO3 Antonio Balolong, SPO2 Arturo
Lascaños, SPO2 Jim Tan, SPO1 Rizalino Aquino, SPO1 Bienvenido Furog, PO2 Vivencio Jumawan, Jr., PO2
Ronald Lao, and PO1 Enrique Ayao, Jr., whowould act as poseur-buyer.
The team proceeded to the school where PO1 Ayao and the CI waited by the gate. At around
8:45 a.m., an orange Nissan Sentra bearing plate number UGR 510 stopped in front of them. The two
men approached the vehicle and the CI talked briefly with an old man in the front seat. PO1 Ayao was
then told to get in the back seat as accused-appellant Mike Talib opened the door. The old man, later
identified as accused-appellant SPO3 Ara, asked PO1 Ayao if he had the money and the latter replied in
the positive. Ara took out several sachets with crystalline granules from his pocket and handed them to
PO1 Ayao, who there upon gave the pre-arranged signal of opening the car door. The driver of the car,
later identified as accused-appellant Jordan Musa, tried to drive away but PO1 Ayao was able to switch
off the car engine in time. The back-up team appeared and SPO1 Furog held on to Musa while PO2 Lao
restrained Talib. PO1 Ayao then asked Ara to get out of the vehicle. Recovered from the group were
plastic sachets of white crystalline substance: six (6) big sachets, weighing 26.6563grams, from Ara by
PO1 Ayao; five (5) big sachets, weighing 14.2936 grams, from Musa by SPO1 Furog; and asmall sachet,
weighing 0.3559 gram, from Talib by PO2 Lao.
The three suspects were brought to the HCIS and the seized items indorsed to the Philippine
National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory for examination. Forensic Chemist Austero, who conducted the
examination, found that the confiscated sachets all tested positive for shabu. The RTC then found ARA
guilty of violation of Sec. 5, 1st paragraph of Republic Act 9165. He is hereby imposed the DEATH
PENALTY and FINE of TEN MILLION PESOS (PhP10,000,000). On the appeal to the appellate court, the CA
then reduced the penalty of ARA to life imprisonment. The case was then raised to the SC.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the buy-bust conducted was valid?

2. Whether or not the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of drugs were sufficiently
established?
3. Whether or not whether the chain of custody over the shabu was unbroken.
RULING:
1. Yes, the buy-bust operation was shown to be a legitimate form of entrapment. The pieces of
evidence thus seized therein were admissible. As the appellate court noted, it was within legal
bounds and no anomaly was found in the conduct of the buy-bust operation.
2. For the successful prosecution of the illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be
established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and its payment. What is material is the
proof that the transaction or sale took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the
corpus delicti as evidence. All these requisites were met by the prosecution.
3. As recently highlighted in People v. Cortez and People v. Lazaro, Jr., RA 9165 and its subsequent
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) do not require strict compliance as to the chain of
custody rule. The arrest of an accused will not be invalidated and the items seized from him
rendered inadmissible on the sole ground of non-compliance with Sec. 21, Article II of RA 9165.
Briefly stated, non-compliance with the procedural requirements under RA 9165 and its IRR
relative to the custody, photographing, and drug-testing of the apprehended persons, is not a
serious flaw that can render void the seizures and custody of drugs in a buy-bust operation.
All three accused-appellants are within the range provided by RA 9165, affirmed the CA’s
sentence.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The CA Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00025B entitled
People of the Philippines v. SPO3 Sangki Ara y Mirasol, Mike Talib y Mama, Jordan Musa y Bayan
is AFFIRMED with the modification that accused-appellant Sangki Ara is not eligible for parole.
SO ORDERED.

People Vs Mirasol Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Mirasol Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs SPO3 SANGKI ARA y MIRASOL, MIKE TALIB y MAMA,

and JORDAN MUSA y BAYAN, accused-appellants.

APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.

1. Whether or not the buy-bust conducted was valid?

You might also like