View full case

ANISAH IMPAL SANGCA v. CITY PROSECUTOR OF CEBU CITY

FACTS:

Petitioner Anisah Impal Sangca filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Lovely Impal Adam, who was detained for alleged violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) received information that Adam was involved in illegal drug trafficking activities in Cebu City. PDEA officers, including Josefino Ligan, Rayford Yap, and Dindo Tuliao, planned an entrapment operation against Adam. On July 7, 2006, Yap and Tuliao, alongside an informant, met Adam at Pizza Hut, where she allegedly handed Yap a packet of white crystalline substance believed to be shabu. Yap confirmed that it was shabu, informed the rest of the team of the successful transaction, and apprehended Adam. Adam denied the drug trafficking charge, claiming she is a trader of ready-to-wear clothing and operates a beauty parlor. She alleged that on the day of the alleged transaction, she was at Pizza Hut with her children and a friend named Ana. Ana received a call from someone named Rose, and later, Rose arrived with a green bag. Ana handed Rose a parcel, and in exchange, Rose gave Ana the green bag. Subsequently, a group of men who claimed to be PDEA officers stopped Adam's car and demanded the bag allegedly given to Ana by Rose. Adam was then arrested for illegal drugs and taken to the PDEA office along with the seized items.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the arrest and detention of Lovely Impal Adam for alleged violation of Section 5, Article 2 of Republic Act No. 9165 was lawful.

  2. Whether the writ of habeas corpus should be granted for the release of Lovely Impal Adam.

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court found that the arrest of Lovely Impal Adam lacked substantial evidence for a conviction based on the deficiencies cited by the Department of Justice and the trial court, such as the absence of buy-bust money.

  2. The writ of habeas corpus was rendered moot as Lovely Impal Adam was already released by order of the trial judge on January 26, 2007. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Habeas Corpus - A writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention where any person is deprived of liberty. Its primary purpose is to safeguard the freedom of physical liberty.

  2. Elements of a Buy-Bust Operation - For a conviction in drug "buy-bust" cases, there must be clear and unmistakable evidence of the delivery of the prohibited drug and the payment for it. The absence of evidence such as buy-bust money is critical and can lead to dismissal of the case.

  3. Probable Cause in Drug Cases - The prosecution must firmly establish all elements of the crime, including the exchange of prohibited drugs and money, to satisfy the requirement of probable cause for holding someone liable. Absence of such evidence can lead to the dismissal of charges or acquittal.

  4. Mootness Doctrine - Courts will not adjudicate issues where no actual controversy exists or where an intervening event renders the issue moot, such as the release of a detainee.