Republic of the Philippines CRIMINAL CASE NO.

13782-D
SUPREME COURT
Manila On or about or immediately prior to October 9, 2004, in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the accused, conspiring and confederating together and both of them
SECOND DIVISION mutually helping and aiding one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously maintain a den, dive or resort located at No. 32 R. Hernandez St., Brgy. San
G.R. No. 185719               June 17, 2013 Joaquin, Pasig City, where x x x dangerous drugs are used or sold in any form, in violation of
the said law.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, 
vs. Contrary to law.4
MARCELINO COLLADO Y CUNANAN, MYRA COLLADO Y SENICA, MARK
CIPRIANO Y ROCERO, SAMUEL SHERWIN LATARIO Y ENRIQUE,* AND Marcelino was also charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11,
REYNALDO RANADA Y ALAS**, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS. Article II of the same law docketed as Criminal Case No. 13783-D, viz:

DECISION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 13783-D

DEL CASTILLO, J.: On or about October 9, 2004, in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess any dangerous drug, did then and
Mere allegations and self-serving statements will not overcome the presumption of regularity there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and under his custody and
in the performance of official duties accorded to police officers. There must be a showing of control one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing six centigrams (0.06 gram) of
clear and convincing evidence to successfully rebut this presumption. white crystalline substance, which was found to be positive to the test for methylamphetamine
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.
On appeal is the February 28, 2008 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-
H.C. No. 02626 which affirmed with modification the December 7, 2005 Decision 2 of the Contrary to law.5
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 154 in Criminal Case Nos. 13781-D,
13783-D and 13784-D. The RTC convicted the appellants and several other accused for On the other hand, appellants Mark Cipriano (Cipriano), Samuel Sherwin Latario (Latario),
violations of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of Reynaldo Ranada (Ranada), together with co-accused Melody Apelo (Apelo), Marwin Abache
2002, and imposed upon them the penalty of imprisonment and payment of fine in each of (Abache), Michael Angelo Sumulong (Sumulong), and Jay Madarang (Madarang), were
their respective cases. charged with possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of Section 14, Article II of RA
9165, docketed as Criminal Case No. 13784-D, viz:
Factual Antecedents
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 13784-D
On October 14, 2004, appellants Marcelino Collado (Marcelino) and Myra Collado (Myra)
were charged with the crimes of sale of dangerous drugs and maintenance of a den, dive or On or about October 9, 2004, in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
resort in violation of Sections 5 and 6 of Article II, RA 9165 docketed as Criminal Case Nos. Court, the accused, each being in the proximate company of two (2) persons and in conspiracy
13781-D and 13782-D, respectively, viz: with one another, without having been duly authorized by law, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have in their possession and under their custody and control the
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 13781-D following paraphernalias [sic], fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering or
introducing any dangerous drug into the body, to wit:
On or about October 9, 2004, in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the accused, conspiring and confederating together and both of them mutually helping a. one (1) strip aluminum foil containing traces of white crystalline substance
and aiding one another, not being lawfully authorized by law, did then and there willfully, marked as Exh-D;
unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give away to PO2 Richard N. Noble, a police
poseur buyer, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing three (3) centigrams b. one (1) improvised glass tooter containing traces of white crystalline substance
(0.03 gram) of white crystalline substance, which was found positive to the test for marked as Exh-D1;
methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.
c. one (1) pack transparent plastic sachet marked as Exh-D2;
Contrary to law.3
 d. two (2) plastic disposable lighters marked as Exhs. "G-H"; backup team rushed to the scene. Simultaneously, PO2 Noble introduced himself as a
policeman and arrested Marcelino. He frisked him and was able to confiscate the metal
e. one (1) tape-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing three (3) rolled aluminum container that contained another sachet of white crystalline substance. PO2 Noble wrote the
foil marked as Exh. D5; markings "MCC-RNN October 9, 2004" on both the plastic sachets of white substance sold to
him by Marcelino and the one found inside the metal container.
f. five (5) unsealed transparent plastic sachets marked as Exh. D6;
Meanwhile, SPO2 Cruz and another police officer went inside the house of Marcelino and
Myra, where they found Apelo, Cipriano, Ranada, Abache, Sumulong, Madarang and Latario
g. one (1) stainless scissor marked as Exh. D7; gathered around a table littered with various drug paraphernalia such as an improvised water
pipe, strips of aluminum foil with traces of white substance, disposable lighters, and plastic
h. one (1) rectangular glass marked as Exh. D8; and sachets. A strip of aluminum foil used for smoking marijuana was recovered from Ranada.
The buy-bust team arrested all these persons, advised them of their constitutional rights, and
i. one (1) roll of aluminum foil marked as Exh. D9. brought them to police headquarters for investigation and drug testing.

[Specimens] marked as Exh-D and Exh-D1 were found positive to the test for A chemistry report14 on all the seized items yielded positive results for methylamphetamine
methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law. hydrochloride. Another chemistry report15 showed Marcelino, Apelo, Cipriano, and Ranada
positive for drug use while Myra, Abache, Sumulong, Madarang, and Latario were found
negative.
Contrary to law.6
Version of the Defense
Upon arraignment on November 4, 2004, all the appellants and the other accused pleaded not
guilty.7 Pre-trial and joint trial on the merits subsequently ensued.
The defense presented the testimonies of Marcelino, Myra, and Ranada, who all essentially put
up the defense of denial. The following is their version of the story.
Version of the Prosecution
Marcelino and Myra owned an electronics and appliance repair shop annexed to their house. In
The prosecution presented as witnesses PO2 Richard Noble (PO2 Noble) and SPO2 Bernardo the evening of October 9, 2004, Marcelino was in the living room with his children and nieces
Cruz (SPO2 Cruz) who were involved in the buy-bust operation that led to the arrest of the fixing a VCD player. Apelo, their househelp, was in the kitchen preparing food while Ranada,
appellants. Their testimonies are summarized as follows: their repairman, was outside the house fixing Sumulong’s motorcycle. Cipriano and Madarang
were also present at the shop, the former to redeem his car stereo and the latter to borrow a
On October 9, 2004, PO2 Noble received information from a civilian asset that spouses play station CD. Latario, a housemate of Marcelino and Myra, was also present at the time.
Marcelino and Myra were engaged in selling shabu and that drug users, including out-of-
school youth, were using their residence in 32 R. Hernandez St., San Joaquin, Pasig City, for Marcelino suddenly heard someone say "Walang tatakbo!" Four armed men rushed inside the
their drug sessions.8 After recording the report in the police blotter, PO2 Noble relayed the house and pointed their guns at him and said "Wag ka nang pumalag." He was thereafter
information to his superior, P/Insp. Earl B. Castillo (P/Insp. Castillo), who in turn ordered the dragged outside where he saw the other accused already in handcuffs. Marcelino was later
conduct of a surveillance operation.9 PO2 Noble, SPO2 Cruz and PO1 Anthony Bitbit, informed that they were being arrested for selling shabu. Marcelino protested and disclaimed
conducted a surveillance on the couple’s residence. After confirming the reported activities, any knowledge about drugs. When the officers frisked all the accused, Marcelino claimed that
SPO2 Cruz looked for an asset who could introduce them to Marcelino and Myra in the nothing illegal nor incriminating was recovered from them.
ensuing buy-bust operation.10
When Myra arrived at the scene, she was shocked to see her husband being arrested. The
A buy-bust operation team was thereafter formed. After coordinating with the Philippine Drug police officers then brought all the accused to the police station for further questioning.
Enforcement Agency as evidenced by a Pre-Operation Report, 11 the team proceeded to
Marcelino’s and Myra’s residence on board two private vehicles. Upon reaching the target
area, the asset introduced PO2 Noble to Marcelino as a regular buyer of shabu. 12 When asked At the police station, PO2 Noble asked Marcelino for ₱50,000.00 as settlement of their case.
how much shabu he needed, PO2 Noble replied, "dalawang piso," which means ₱200.00 worth Marcelino, Apelo, Cipriano, and Ranada were also made to drink water that according to
of drugs. But when PO2 Noble was handing over the marked money to Marcelino, the latter Marcelino tasted bitter.16 They were then brought to Camp Crame for medical examination and
motioned that the same be given to his wife, Myra, who accepted the money. Marcelino then drug tests. Those who drank the bitter water tested positive for drugs use while the others, who
took from his pocket a small metal container from which he brought out a small plastic sachet did not drink, tested negative.
containing white crystalline substance and gave the same to PO2 Noble. While PO2 Noble
was inspecting its contents, he noticed smoke coming from a table inside the house of the Marcelino surmised that their arrest was due to a misunderstanding he had with a former
couple around which were seven persons.13 When PO2 Noble gave the pre-arranged signal, the police officer named Rey who bought a VCD player from his shop. He specifically instructed
Rey not to let anyone repair the VCD player should it malfunction. However, when the VCD Ruling of the Court of Appeals
player malfunctioned, Rey had it repaired by somebody else, hence Marcelino refused to
accept the VCD player and return Rey’s money. This earned the ire of Rey who threatened The appellate court found the warrantless arrest of the appellants to be lawful considering that
him with the words "Humanda ka pagbalik ko."17 they were caught in the act of committing a crime. 22 Thus, the CA affirmed the conviction of
Marcelino and Myra for violation of Section 5 of RA 9165 (sale of dangerous drugs), as well
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court as the conviction of Marcelino for violation of Section 11 of RA 9165 (illegal possession of
dangerous drugs). Anent the violation of Section 14 of RA 9165 (possession of drug
In its Decision18 dated December 7, 2005, the RTC disposed of the case as follows: paraphernalia), the CA affirmed the conviction of Ranada as he was caught having custody
and control of a drug paraphernalia intended for smoking and injecting illegal drugs into one’s
body.23 As regards Cipriano and Latario, as well as the other accused Apelo, Abache,
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows: Sumulong and Madarang, the CA found them guilty not as principals but only as accessories.

In Crim. Case No. 13781-D, finding the accused MARCELINO COLLADO y Cunanan and Thus, the appellate court affirmed with modification the trial court’s Decision through a
MYRA COLLADO y Senica GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Decision24 dated February 28, 2008, the dispositive portion of which states:
Section 5 of R.A. 9165 (sale of dangerous drug) and they are hereby sentenced to suffer the
penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT.
WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is AFFIRMED with respect to the conviction and
imposition of the respective penalties against the following: (A) appellants Marcelino Collado
Additionally, the two accused are ordered to pay a fine of ONE MILLION PESOS and Myra Collado in Crim. Case No. 13781-D25 for violation of Section 5, Article II, RA No.
(₱1,000,000.00) EACH. 9165; (B) appellant Marcelino Collado in Crim. Case No. 13783-D for violation of Section 11,
Article II, RA No. 9165; (C) appellant Reynaldo Ranada in Crim. Case No. 13784-D for
In Crim. Case No. 13782-D, judgment is rendered finding the accused MARCELINO violation of Section 14, Article II, RA No. 9165.
COLLADO y Cunanan and MYRA COLLADO y Senica NOT GUILTY of the crime of
violation of Section 6. In Crim. Case No. 13784-D, MODIFICATION is hereby ordered as to appellants Mark
Cipriano and Samuel Sherwin Latario, including co-accused Melody Apelo, Marwin Abache,
In Crim. Case No. 13783-D, finding the accused MARCELINO COLLADO y Cunanan Michael Angelo Sumulong and Jay Madarang – insofar as they were found GUILTY, not as
GUILTY of the offense of violation of Section 11 of R.A. 9165 and he is hereby sentenced to principals, but as ACCESSORIES in the offense of violation of Section 14, Article II of RA
suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) No. 9165, in relation to the aforecited provision of the Revised Penal Code. Each of them shall
DAY to FIFTEEN (15) YEARS. suffer the straight penalty of Four (4) Months of arresto mayor. The fine of Ten Thousand
Pesos already imposed by the trial court upon each of them is MAINTAINED.
The accused Marcelino Collado is also ordered to pay a fine of THREE HUNDRED
THOUSAND PESOS (₱300,000.00). SO ORDERED.26

In Crim. Case No. 13784-D, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused MELODY Not satisfied, the appellants are now before this Court arguing that irregularities attended their
APELO y Roman, MARK CIPRIANO y Rocero, MARWIN ABACHE y Aquilino, arrest and detention as well as the procedure in handling the specimen allegedly seized from
MICHAEL ANGELO SUMULONG y Belarmino, JAY MADARANG y Gomez, SAMUEL them. Because of these, they assert that their guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
SHERWIN LATARIO y Enrique and REYNALDO RANADA y Alas GUILTY of the offense
of violation of Section 14 of R.A. 9165 and they are hereby sentenced to suffer the Our Ruling
indeterminate penalty of TWO (2) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY to
FOUR (4) YEARS imprisonment. Each of them is also ordered to pay a fine of TEN
THOUSAND PESOS (₱10,000.00). The appealed Decision should be affirmed, with modification.

Let the shabu and paraphernalia alleged to be the subject[s] of the Information be turned over The presumption of regularity in the
and delivered immediately to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper performance of official duties must
disposition. be upheld in the absence of clear and
convincing evidence to overturn the
same.
SO ORDERED.19
Appellants question the validity of the buy-bust operation and point out the following
Accused Apelo, Abache, Sumulong and Madarang applied for probation. 20 Hence, only irregularities which they claim attended its conduct: (1) lack of warrant of arrest; (2) non-
Marcelino, Myra, Cirpriano, Latario and Ranada appealed to the CA. 21 compliance with the procedures laid down under Section 21 of RA 9165; and, (3) the alleged
extortion of money from them by PO2 Noble in exchange for dropping the charges against Anent their claim of unreasonable search and seizure, it is true that under the Constitution, "a
them. Due to these irregularities, appellants argue that the presumption of regularity in the search and consequent seizure must be carried out with a judicial warrant; otherwise, it
performance of official duties accorded to police officers does not apply in this case. becomes unreasonable and any evidence obtained therefrom shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding."31 This proscription, however, admits of exceptions, one of which
Lack of a warrant of arrest is a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest. 32

Appellants argue that the arrest, search, and seizure conducted by the police were illegal since The arrest of the appellants was lawful. Under Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, "[a]
it was not supported by a valid warrant. They thus posit that their right to be secure in their person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have
persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures was violated. 27 been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant." The
factual milieu of this case clearly shows that the search was made after appellants were
lawfully arrested. Pursuant to the above-mentioned rule, the subsequent search and seizure
Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court provides for lawful warrantless arrests, viz: made by the police officers were likewise valid. Hence, appellants’ claim of unreasonable
search and seizure must fail.1âwphi1
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. -- A peace officer or a private person may,
without a warrant, arrest a person: Extortion

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually Appellants aver that PO2 Noble tried to extort money from them in exchange for dropping the
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; drug charges against them.

(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed and he has probable cause to The defense of extortion and/or frame-up is often put up in drugs cases in order to cast doubt
believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be on the credibility of police officers. This is a serious imputation of a crime hence clear and
arrested has committed it; and convincing evidence must be presented to support the same. There must also be a showing that
the police officers were inspired by improper motive. In this case, we find such imputation
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who escaped from a penal unfounded.
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined
while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one In People v. Capalad,33 this Court held thus:
confinement to another.
Charges of extortion and frame-up are frequently made in this jurisdiction. Courts are, thus,
Section 5(a) is what is known as arrest in flagrante delicto. For this type of warrantless arrest cautious in dealing with such accusations, which are quite difficult to prove in light of the
to be valid, two requisites must concur: "(1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act presumption of regularity in the performance of the police officers’ duties. To substantiate
indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a such defense, which can be easily concocted, the evidence must be clear and convincing and
crime; and, (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting should show that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or
officer."28 A common example of an arrest in flagrante delicto is one made after conducting a were not properly performing their duty. Otherwise, the police officers’ testimonies on the
buy-bust operation. operation deserve full faith and credit.

This is precisely what happened in the present case. The arrest of the appellants was an arrest Here, aside from Marcelino’s self-serving testimony, appellants’ claim of extortion is not
in flagrante delicto made in pursuance of Sec. 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. The arrest substantiated by other convincing evidence. Neither was it established during trial that PO2
was effected after Marcelino and Myra performed the overt act of selling to PO2 Noble the Noble or the other members of the buy-bust team were impelled by improper motive.
sachet of shabu and Ranada of having in his control and custody illegal drug paraphernalia. Appellants’ allegation that PO2 Noble and his team arrested them because of Marcelino’s
Thus, there is no other logical conclusion than that the arrest made by the police officers was a previous misunderstanding with a certain retired policeman named Rey deserves no credence.
valid warrantless arrest since the same was made while the appellants were actually No evidence was presented to show any connection between Rey and the buy-bust team. It
committing the said crimes. was not even shown by the defense who this person Rey really is. Also, it is highly unlikely
that a team of police officers would pursue a surveillance, conduct a buy-bust operation, and
Moreover, assuming that irregularities indeed attended the arrest of appellants, they can no arrest all the accused for a measly ₱1,000.00 VCD player. In view of these, appellants’
longer question the validity thereof as there is no showing that they objected to the same allegation of extortion and improper motive deserves no credence.
before their arraignment. Neither did they take steps to quash the Informations on such
ground.29 They only raised this issue upon their appeal to the appellate court. By this omission, Chain of Custody
any objections on the legality of their arrest are deemed to have been waived by them. 30
Appellants argue that the procedure laid down in Section 21 of RA 9165 was not followed. Q: What were those markings?
They specifically harp on the fact that the confiscated drugs were not photographed and
inventoried. Moreover, they contend that the police officers who handled the seized specimen A: MCC-RNN October 9, 2004.36
were not presented in court to testify on the condition in which they received the said
specimen. For the appellants, these defects constitute a clear break in the chain of custody and,
consequently, the prosecution failed to establish corpus delicti. 34 In the Request for Laboratory Examination37 the seized items were listed and inventoried.
After the conduct of the laboratory examination, Chemistry Report No. D-807-04 38 revealed
that the contents of the said sachets tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or
The Court, however, finds this argument unmeritorious. shabu.

Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of RA 9165 provides for the custody and disposition of the Moreover, it is of no moment that Forensic Chemist Alejandro De Guzman who conducted the
confiscated drugs, to wit: laboratory examination was not presented as a witness. The non-presentation as witnesses of
other persons who had custody of the illegal drugs is not a crucial point against the
(1) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, prosecution.39 There is no requirement for the prosecution to present as witness in a drugs case
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in every person who had something to do with the arrest of the accused and the seizure of the
the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or prohibited drugs from him.40 To stress, the implementing rules are clear that non-compliance
seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the with the requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary
Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not
copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. 41

This rule is elaborated in Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations Criminal Case No. 13784-D
of RA 9165, viz:
With regard to Criminal Case No. 13784-D for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia, we
a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, find it imperative to re-examine the findings of both the RTC and the CA.
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 The RTC’s findings are as follows:
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 The evidence for the prosecution clearly shows that certain things or paraphernalia which are
photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest fit or intended [for] smoking shabu were found in the house of the accused Marcelino and
police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/ team, whichever is Myra Collado on the same occasion that the said spouses were arrested by the police officers.
practicable, in case of warrantless seizure; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these This fact makes all the accused without exception liable for violation of Section 14. While it
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the was only Reynaldo Ranada who was caught having in his possession an item used in smoking
seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void marijuana, i.e., a strip of aluminum foil x x x and nothing was found in the possession of the
and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. (Emphasis supplied) other accused, this fact nonetheless does not render Reynaldo Ranada the only person liable
for violation of Section 14. [Take note] that the law speaks not only of possession but also of
having under one’s control the paraphernalia intended for smoking. In the instant case, the
Pursuant to the above-cited provisions, this Court has consistently ruled that the failure of the paraphernalia were found by the police on top of the table around which the accused were
police officers to inventory and photograph the confiscated items are not fatal to the gathered. Hence, even if the x x x accused other than Ranada did not have in their possession
prosecution’s cause,35 provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized substance any of the paraphernalia, it can, however, be said that the paraphernalia found on top of the
were preserved, as in this case. Here, PO2 Noble, after apprehending Marcelino and table were under their control. x x x42
confiscating from him the sachets of shabu, immediately placed his markings on them. He
testified thus:
Thus, the RTC found Ranada, Cipriano, Latario, Apelo Abache, Sumulong and Madarang all
equally guilty of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia.
PROSECUTOR PAZ:
On appeal, however, the CA found Ranada guilty as principal while Cipriano, Latario, Apelo,
Q: What did you do with that sachet containing white substance that was bought from Abache, Sumulong and Madarang were adjudged as accessories only for the crime of illegal
Marcelino and the one that you were able to confiscate from him? possession of drug paraphernalia. The CA ratiocinated thus:

A: I put my markings. On the one hand, we sustain the conviction of Rañada in Crim. Case 13784-D. He was actually
caught having custody and control of the confiscated drug paraphenalia intended for smoking,
injecting, etc. into one’s body. It was also indubitably shown that he failed to present authority paraphernalia was found in their possession. The police officers were only able to find the
to possess the prohibited articles, much less, an explanation of his possession thereof. other drug paraphernalia scattered on top of a table. It is already established that there was no
However, as regards the other accused who were seen in the company of Rañada, the evidence conspiracy between Ranada and the other co-accused. As the CA correctly held, mere
of conspiracy against them was insufficient. presence at the scene of the crime does not imply conspiracy. 46

To hold an accused guilty as co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to have PO2 Noble, when placed on the witness stand, only testified as follows:
performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity. Responsibility of a
conspirator is not confined to the accomplishment of a particular purpose of conspiracy but A-
extends to collateral acts and offenses incident to and growing out of the purpose intended.
While I was checking the item that I bought, I saw several persons inside their house.
It may be that appellants Mark Cipriano and Samuel Sherwin Latario and co-accused Melody
Apelo, Marwin Abache, Michael Angelo Sumulong, Jay Madarang were in close proximity
[to] Rañada at the time and place of the incident. But mere presence at the scene of the crime Q-
does not imply conspiracy. The prosecution failed to show specific overt acts that would link
these accused to Ranada’s possession of the said contrabands. As to why they were there [in] What were these persons doing?
the vicinity of the crime scene was not explained. They could be mere innocent onlookers
although they were aware of the illegality of the principal’s acts. A-

In any event, appellants Cipriano and Latario and the rest of the accused cannot be totally Some were seated, some were standing and there was x x x smoke.
exonerated.1âwphi1 [However, we] downgrade their culpability corresponding to their
criminal design and participation. Evidently, they are guilty as accessories who, according to
paragraph 1, Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code, are criminally liable by ‘profiting Q-
themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime’. 43
Where was this smoke coming from?
We find that the CA erred in convicting Cipriano, Latario, Apelo, Abache, Sumulong and
Madarang as accessories. As pointed out by Justice Arturo D. Brion: A-

"[I]llegal possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for I did not see where the smoke [was] coming from because some of the persons were blocking
dangerous drugs during parties, social gatherings or meetings under Section 14 of R.A. No. [my view].
9165 is a crime of malum prohibitum, that is, the act is made wrong or evil because there is a
law prohibiting it. x x x
Q-

Since violation of Section 14 of R.A. No. 9165 is a crime of mala prohibita, the degree of
About how many persons were inside who were seated and who were standing?
participation of the offenders is not considered. All who perpetrated the prohibited act are
penalized to the same extent. There is no principal or accomplice or accessory to consider. In
short, the degree of participation of the offenders does not affect their liability, and the penalty A-
on all of them are the same whether they are principals or merely accomplices or accessories. 44
Seven (7).
In addition, Section 98 of RA 9165 specifically provides that "[n]otwithstanding any law, rule
or regulation to the contrary, the provisions of the Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3814), as Q-
amended, shall not apply to the provisions of this Act, except in the case of minor offenders.
Where the offender is a minor, the penalty for acts punishable by life imprisonment to death
Will you tell us if they are male or female or both?
provided herein shall be reclusion perpetua to death." It is therefore clear 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 Ranada’s co-accused. A-

At any rate, this Court is convinced that only Ranada should be held liable for violation of Six (6) male persons and one (1) female.
Section 14 of RA 9165. It is clear that it was only Ranada who was caught having in his
possession an aluminum foil intended for using dangerous drugs.45 As to the other co-accused, Q-
namely Apelo, Abache, Cipriano, Latario, Madarang, and Sumulong, not one drug
What are these persons who were seated inside the house doing? Q-

A- How about the aluminum foil that you recovered from another?

They were allegedly engaged in drug session. A-

COURT: I saw him holding the strip of aluminum foil, sir.

Q- Q-

What do you mean allegedly? So, nothing was confiscated in the person of all other accused except for Ranada?

A- A-

Because there was smoke and I did not see what they were using. Yes, sir.48

PROSECUTOR PAZ: Therefore, 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,
Q- apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs.

What about those who were standing, what were they doing? All told, this Court upholds the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties
by the police officers involved in this case. The defense was not able to show by clear and
convincing evidence why the presumption should be overturned. The prosecution, on the other
A- hand, was able to establish that Marcelino, Myra and Ranada committed the crimes imputed
against them, they having been caught in flagrante delicto. This Court, being convinced that
The persons who were standing were looking at the persons who were sitting. I could not see the guilt of Marcelino, Myra, and Ranada have been proven beyond reasonable doubt, must
them clearly because some of them were blocking my view. uphold their conviction.

Q- As to Apelo, Abache, Cipriano, Latario, Madarang, and Sumulong, the Court finds that they
should be acquitted of the offense of violation of Section 14, Article II, RA 9165, since the
How far were they, those who were seated and those who were standing? prosecution was not able to clearly show specific overt acts that would prove that they were in
possession of drug paraphernalia.

A-
WHEREFORE, the appeal is PARTLY GRANTED. The February 28, 2008 Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02626 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that
They were close to each other. appellants Mark Cipriano and Samuel Sherwin Latario, including co-accused Melody Apelo,
Marwin Abache, Michael Angelo Sumulong, and Jay Madarang are hereby ACQUITTED of
Q- the crime of violation of Section 14, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. They are ordered
released unless they are being lawfully held for some other cause.
How long did you take a look at these persons inside the house?
SO ORDERED.
A-
Carpio, (Chairperson), Brion, Del Castillo, Perez, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.
47
Only for a while, only for a glance, sir.

On the other hand, SPO2 Bernardo Cruz testified that it was only Ranada who was caught
holding the aluminum foil, viz: