G.R. No. 189840. December 11, 2013.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JAY MONTEVIRGEN y OZARAGA, accused-appellant.

FACTS:

On July 18, 2005, P/Supt. Marietto Valerio (P/Supt. Valerio) of the Makati City Police Station Anti-Illegal
Drugs Special Operation Task Force received a report from a confidential informant that appellant was
selling shabu in Malvar Street, Barangay South Cembo, Makati City. Thus, he immediately formed a team
composed of police officers and personnel of the Makati Anti-Drug Abuse Council (MADAC) to conduct a
buy-bust operation against appellant. PO3 Ruiz was designated as poseur-buyer and was provided with
two 100-peso bills marked money. PO1 Marmonejo, on the other hand, coordinated the operation with
the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), which issued a Certificate of Coordination. The buy-
bust team then proceeded to the subject area but could not locate appellant.

The next day, July 19, 2005, the buy-bust team returned to Malvar Street and found appellant,
accompanied by the confidential informant, approached appellant. The confidential informant
introduced PO3 Ruiz to appellant and told him that PO3 Ruiz wanted to buy shabu. Appellant asked PO3
Ruiz how much he wanted to buy and he replied, P200.00. Appellant pulled out from his pocket three
plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance and told PO3 Ruiz to choose one. He complied and
gave the marked money to appellant as payment. Appellant pocketed the remaining plastic sachets
together with the marked money. PO3 Ruiz then took off his cap — the pre-arranged signal that the
transaction had been consummated. The other buy-bust team members then rushed to the scene to
assist PO3 Ruiz in apprehending appellant. The two other plastic sachets and marked money were
recovered from appellant after PO3 Ruiz ordered him to empty his pockets. PO3 Ruiz then marked the
plastic sachets — “EMR” for the one appellant sold to him and “EMR-1” and “EMR-2” for the other two
sachets confiscated from appellant.

Appellant was taken to the police headquarters where he was booked and the incident recorded in the
police blotter. The items seized from him were turned over to the duty investigator who prepared a
request for laboratory examination and then sent to the crime laboratory. The results revealed that the
contents of the plastic sachets are positive for shabu.

The RTC gave credence to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses on the events that transpired
prior to and during the buy-bust operation.

On appeal, the CA concurred with the RTC’s findings and conclusions and, consequently, affirmed its
judgment in the assailed Decision.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Regional Trial Court erred in convicting the accused despite non-compliance
with the requirements for the proper custody of seized dangerous drugs under R.A. 9165.

Whether or not the coordination of the buy-bust team with the PDEA is an indispensable
requirement in apprehending the accused.

Ruling

The appeal is unmeritorious

Appellant draws attention to the failure of the apprehending police officers to comply with Section
21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 regarding the physical inventory
and photograph of the seized items. This provision reads as follows:
(1) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately
after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and
any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof; Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the
search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending
officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided further, that non-
compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not
render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.

There is a proviso in the implementing rules stating that when it is shown that there exist justifiable
grounds and proof that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence have been preserved, the
seized items can still be used in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused.

Here, the absence of evidence that the buy-bust team made an inventory and took photographs of the
drugs seized from appellant was not fatal since the prosecution was able to preserve the integrity and
evidentiary value of the shabu. PO3 Ruiz, the poseur-buyer and apprehending officer, marked the seized
items in front of appellant, the barangay captain and other members of the buy-bust team, immediately
after the consummation of the drug transaction. He then delivered the seized items to the duty
investigator, who in turn sent the same to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination on the same day.
During trial, PO3 Ruiz was able to identify the said markings and explain how they were made.

Clearly, there was no hiatus or confusion in the confiscation, handling, custody and examination of the
shabu. The illegal drugs that were confiscated from appellant, taken to the police headquarters,
subjected to qualitative examination at the crime laboratory, and finally introduced in evidence against
appellant were the same illegal drugs that were confiscated from him when he was caught in flagrante
delicto selling and possessing the same.

Appellant’s contention that the buy-bust team should have coordinated with the PDEA on the day the
entrapment operation occurred deserves scant consideration. Coordination with the PDEA is not an
indispensable element of a proper buy-bust operation.22 A buy-bust operation is not invalidated by
mere non-coordination with the PDEA.
G.R. No. 200748. July 23, 2014.*

JAIME D. DELA CRUZ, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS:

NBI received a complaint from Corazon Absin and Charito Escobido claiming that Ariel Escobido
(live-in partner of Corazon and son of Charito) was picked up by police officers for allegedly selling
drugs. An errand boy gave a number to the complainants. When they called the number, they were
instructed to go to the Gorordo Police Station.

In the said police station, they met “James” who demanded 100,000 (later on lowered to 40,000) in
exchange for the release of Ariel. After the said meeting, the complainants went directly to the NBI
wherein the NBI formed an entrapment operation.

The officers were able to nab Jaime dela Cruz through the use of mark-money.

Jaime dela Cruz was brought to the forensic laboratory of NBI where he was required to submit his
urine for drug testing. The test yielded positive for presence of dangerous drugs. Based on dela Cruz’
testimony, he was contending that he refused to the drug examination and requested to call his
laywer but it was denied by the NBI.

RTC – found dela Cruz guilty of violating Sec. 15 of RA9165; ruled that all the elements were present:
1) accused was arrested 2) accused was subjected to drug test 3) confirmatory test shows that he
used a dangerous drug

CA – affirmed RTC ruling; ruled that extracting urine from one’s body is merely a mechanical act,
hence falling outside the concept of a custodial investigation.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the drug test conducted upon Jaime dela Cruz was legal?

HELD:

No. FIRST, the drug test in Section 15 does not cover persons apprehended or arrested for any unlawful
act, but only for unlawful acts listed under Article II of R.A. 9165. To make the provision applicable to all
persons arrested or apprehended for any crime not listed under Article II is tantamount to unduly
expanding its meaning. Note that accused appellant here was arrested in the alleged act of extortion.

SECOND, the drug test is not covered by allowable non-testimonial compulsion. We are aware of the
prohibition against testimonial compulsion and the allowable exceptions to such proscription. Cases
where non-testimonial compulsion has been allowed reveal, however, that the pieces of evidence
obtained were all material to the principal cause of the arrest. In the instant case, we fail to see how a
urine sample could be material to the charge of extortion. The RTC and the CA, therefore, both erred
when they held that the extraction of petitioner’s urine for purposes of drug testing was “merely a
mechanical act, hence, falling outside the concept of a custodial investigation.”

LASTLY, the drug test was a violation of petitioner’s right to privacy and right against self-incrimination.
It is incontrovertible that petitioner refused to have his urine extracted and tested for drugs. He also
asked for a lawyer prior to his urine test. He was adamant in exercising his rights, but all of his efforts
proved futile, because he was still compelled to submit his urine for drug testing under those
circumstances. Such acts were in violation of Sec 2 and Sec 17 of the 1987 Constitution. In the face of
these constitutional guarantees, we cannot condone drug testing of all arrested persons regardless of
the crime or offense for which the arrest is being made.

DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision dated 22 June 2011 issued by the Twentieth
Division, and the Resolution dated 2 February 2012 issued by the former Twentieth Division of the Court
of Appeals, in CA-G.R. C.R. No. 00670 are SET ASIDE. Petitioner is hereby ACQUITTED.