View full case

PEOPLE v. MARCELINO COLLADO Y CUNANAN

FACTS:

Marcelino and Myra Collado were charged with violation of Section 5 and Section 11 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. A buy-bust operation was conducted by the police, and Marcelino was arrested after giving a sachet of white crystalline substance to a poseur buyer. Myra and other individuals present at the scene were also arrested. Various drug paraphernalia and substances were found in their possession, which tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.

The defense questioned the credibility of the police officers involved in the operation, claiming inconsistencies in their testimonies. Marcelino and Myra were found guilty by the trial court and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine. Marcelino was also found guilty of illegal possession of dangerous drugs and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty. They appealed their convictions to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed them with modification. The case was then elevated to the Supreme Court for further review.

In another case, Melody Apelo, Mark Cipriano, Marwin Abache, Michael Angelo Sumulong, Jay Madarang, Samuel Sherwin Latario, and Reynaldo Ranada were charged with illegal possession of drug paraphernalia. They were found guilty by the RTC and sentenced to imprisonment and fined. Marcelino, Myra, Cipriano, Latario, and Ranada appealed their convictions to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed them. Cipriano and Latario, along with Apelo, Abache, Sumulong, and Madarang, were found guilty only as accessories to the offense.

The appellants then filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, claiming irregularities in their arrest, detention, and handling of the seized specimen, and arguing that their guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the arrest conducted by the police officers was valid.

  2. Whether the search and seizure conducted by the police officers were legal.

  3. Whether there is credible evidence to support the claim of extortion.

  4. Whether the procedure laid down in Section 21 of RA 9165 was followed.

  5. Whether the non-presentation of the police officers who handled the seized drugs and the Forensic Chemist who conducted the laboratory examination is fatal to the prosecution's case.

  6. Whether the accused are liable for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia.

  7. Whether or not the co-accused can be held liable as accessories for the crime of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia.

  8. Whether or not the degree of participation of the offenders affects their liability in the crime of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia.

  9. Whether Apelo, Abache, Cipriano, Latario, Madarang, and Sumulong should be acquitted of the charge of violation of Section 14, RA 9165 on possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus, and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs.

  10. Whether the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the police officers involved in this case should be overturned.

RULING:

  1. The arrest conducted by the police officers was valid. The arrest was made in flagrante delicto, as the appellants were caught in the act of committing a crime. The overt act of selling drugs and possessing drug paraphernalia was done in the presence of the arresting officer. Any irregularities in the arrest were deemed waived as the appellants did not object to the arrest before their arraignment.

  2. The search and seizure conducted by the police officers were legal. The search was incidental to a lawful arrest, as authorized by Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. The search and seizure were valid as they were made after the appellants were lawfully arrested.

  3. There is no credible evidence to support the claim of extortion. The defense of extortion and frame-up must be supported by clear and convincing evidence and evidence of improper motive on the part of the police officers. In this case, the imputation was unsubstantiated, as it was solely based on the appellant's self-serving testimony.

  4. The Supreme Court finds that the procedure laid down in Section 21 of RA 9165 was followed. The failure to photograph and inventory the confiscated drugs does not render the seizure and custody of the drugs void if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved by the apprehending officer.

  5. The non-presentation of the police officers who handled the seized drugs and the Forensic Chemist who conducted the laboratory examination is not fatal to the prosecution's case. There is no requirement to present every person who had something to do with the arrest and seizure of the drugs as a witness. Non-compliance with the requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, does not render the seizure and custody of the drugs void.

  6. The accused are liable for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia. Possession and control of drug paraphernalia are acts punishable under Section 14 of RA 9165. Even if the paraphernalia were found in the house belonging to Marcelino and Myra Collado, all the accused are liable because the law does not only speak of possession but also having under one's control paraphernalia intended for drug use.

  7. The co-accused cannot be held liable as accessories for the crime of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia. The Court explained that illegal possession of drug paraphernalia is a crime of malum prohibitum, meaning the act is made wrong because there is a law prohibiting it. Therefore, the degree of participation of the offenders does not affect their liability, and the penalty on all of them is the same whether they are principals or merely accomplices or accessories.

  8. The degree of participation of the offenders does not affect their liability in the crime of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia. The Court held that Section 98 of RA 9165 expressly provides that the provisions of the Revised Penal Code, particularly Article 19 on Accessories, cannot be applied in determining the degree of participation and criminal liability of the co-accused. Thus, all offenders who perpetrated the prohibited act are penalized to the same extent, regardless of their level of participation.

  9. Apelo, Abache, Cipriano, Latario, Madarang, and Sumulong should be acquitted of the offense of violation of Section 14, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 since the prosecution failed to show specific overt acts proving that they were in possession of drug paraphernalia.

  10. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the police officers involved in this case is upheld as the defense failed to provide clear and convincing evidence to overturn the presumption. Marcelino, Myra, and Ranada, who were caught in flagrante delicto, were convicted as their guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties must be upheld in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to overturn the same.

  • A valid warrant is not necessary for a warrantless arrest when any of the circumstances enumerated in Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court are present.

  • A search and seizure can be carried out without a warrant if it is incidental to a lawful arrest.

  • The defense of extortion and frame-up in drugs cases must be supported by clear and convincing evidence and evidence of improper motive on the part of the police officers.

  • Failure to inventory and photograph confiscated drugs is not fatal if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved.

  • Non-presentation of all persons involved in the arrest and seizure is not a crucial point against the prosecution.

  • Non-compliance with requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, does not render the seizure and custody of the drugs void.

  • Possession and control of drug paraphernalia are punishable acts under Section 14 of RA 9165.

  • In the crime of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia, the degree of participation of the offenders does not affect their liability, as it is a crime of malum prohibitum.

  • Section 98 of RA 9165 expressly provides that the provisions of the Revised Penal Code, particularly Article 19 on Accessories, cannot be applied in determining the degree of participation and criminal liability in cases of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia.

  • The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by law enforcement officers.

  • The need for clear and convincing evidence to overturn the presumption of regularity.

  • The requirement for specific overt acts to prove possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of Section 14, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.