Lawyerly

GR No. 208015

2015-10-14

PEOPLE OF PHILIPINES v. RONWALDO LAFARAN Y ACLAN

PEREZ, J.

Finally, as to the issue of the non-participation of the PDEA in the buy-bust operation, suffice it to say that coordination with the PDEA is not an indispensable requirement before police authorities may carry out a buy-bust operation. While it is true that Section 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 requires the National Bureau of Investigation, Philippine National Police, and the Bureau of Customs to maintain "close coordination with the PDEA on all drug related matters," the provision does not, by so saying, make PDEA's participation a condition sine qua non for every buy-bust operation. After all, a buy-bust is just a form of an in flagrante arrest sanctioned by Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, which police authorities may rightfully resort to in apprehending violators of Republic Act No. 9165 in support of the PDEA. A buy-bust operation is not invalidated by mere non-coordination with the PDEA.[44]

GR No. 198024

2015-03-16

PEOPLE v. RAFAEL CUNANAN Y DAVID

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Appellant's contention is untenable. "This Court has consistently ruled that non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of [RA] 9165 will not necessarily render the [item] seized or confiscated in a buy-bust operation inadmissible. Strict compliance with the letter of Section 21 is not required if there is a clear showing that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized [item] have been preserved, i.e., the [item] being offered in court as [exhibit is], without a specter of doubt, the very same [one] recovered in the buy-bust operation."[20] Thus, the primordial concern is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[21]

GR No. 206366

2014-08-13

PEOPLE v. EDUARDO BALAQUIT Y BALDERAMA

PEREZ, J.

Second. The appellant's qualm regarding the absence of coordination between the Camiling PNP and the PDEA is also immaterial. In People v. Roa,[14] this Court ruled that prior coordination with the PDEA is not a condition sine qua non for the validity of every entrapment operation conducted by police authorities: In the first place, coordination with the PDEA is not an indispensable requirement before police authorities may carry out a buy-bust operation. While it is true that Section 86[15] of Republic Act No. 9165 requires the National Bureau of Investigation, PNP and the Bureau of Customs to maintain "close coordination with the PDEA on all drug related matters," the provision does not, by so saying, make PDEA's participation a condition sine qua non for every buy-bust operation. After all, a buy-bust is just a form of an in flagrante arrest sanctioned by Section 5, Rule 113[16] of the Rules of the Court, which police authorities may rightfully resort to in apprehending violators of Republic Act No. 9165 in support of the PDEA.[17] A buy-bust operation is not invalidated by mere non-coordination with the PDEA.

GR No. 201845

2013-03-06

PEOPLE v. EDGARDO ADRID Y FLORES

VELASCO JR., J.

In the first place, coordination with the PDEA is not an indispensable requirement before police authorities may carry out a buy-bust operation. While it is true that Section 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 requires the National Bureau of Investigation, PNP and the Bureau of Customs to maintain "close coordination with the PDEA on all drug-related matters," the provision does not, by so saying, make PDEA's participation a condition sine qua non for every buy-bust operation. After all, a buy-bust is just a form of an in flagrante arrest sanctioned by Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of the Court, which police authorities may rightfully resort to in apprehending violators of Republic Act No. 9165 in support of the PDEA. A buy-bust operation is not invalidated by mere non-coordination with the PDEA.[33]

GR No. 179936

2012-04-11

PEOPLE v. JAMAD ABEDIN Y JANDAL

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

This Court, however, has already expounded on the nature and importance of a buy-bust operation and ruled that coordination with the PDEA is not an indispensable requirement before police authorities may carry out a buy-bust operation. While it is true that Section 86 of R.A. No. 9165 requires the National Bureau of Investigation, PNP and the Bureau of Customs to maintain "close coordination with the PDEA on all drug-related matters," the provision does not, by so saying, make PDEA's participation a condition sine qua non for every buy-bust operation. After all, a buy-bust is just a form of an in flagrante arrest sanctioned by Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of the Court which police authorities may rightfully resort to in apprehending violators of R.A. No. 9165 in support of the PDEA. A buy-bust operation is not invalidated by mere non-coordination with the PDEA.[33]

GR No. 186141

2012-04-11

PEOPLE v. JESUSA FIGUEROA Y CORONADO

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Accused-appellant's contention is unmeritorious. It is settled that Section 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 does not invalidate operations on account of the the law enforcers' failure to maintain close coordination with the PDEA. Thus, in People v. Berdadero,[13] the Court noted that Section 86, as well as the Internal Rules and Regulations implementing the same, is silent as to the consequences of the failure on the part of the law enforcers to seek the authority of the PDEA prior to conducting a buy-bust operation. This Court consequently held that "this silence [cannot] be interpreted as a legislative intent to make an arrest without the participation of PDEA illegal or evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible."[14] The same conclusion was reached by this Court in People v. Roa,[15] People v. Mantalaba[16] and People v. Sabadlab.[17]

GR No. 189327

2012-02-29

PEOPLE v. EMILY MENDOZA Y SARTIN

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Lack of coordination with the PDEA will not invalidate a buy-bust operation. This Court has declared that coordination with the PDEA is not an indispensable requirement in buy-bust operations. Neither Section 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 nor its Implementing Rules and Regulations make PDEA's participation a condition sine qua non for the conduct of a buy-bust operation, especially since a buy-bust operation is merely a form of an in flagrante arrest, which is sanctioned by Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.[38]

GR No. 187736

2012-02-08

PEOPLE v. FLORDELIZA ARRIOLA Y DE LARA

MENDOZA, J.

In the case of People v. Roa,[28] the Court explained that the requirement of coordination with the PDEA with respect to a buy-bust operation is not indispensable. In said case, it said: In the first place, coordination with the PDEA is not an indispensable requirement before police authorities may carry out a buy-bust operation. While it is true that Section 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 requires the National Bureau of Investigation, PNP and the Bureau of Customs to maintain "close coordination with the PDEA on all drug-related matters," the provision does not, by so saying, make PDEA's participation a condition sine qua non for every buy-bust operation. After all, a buy-bust is just a form of an in flagrante arrest sanctioned by Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of the Court, which police authorities may rightfully resort to in apprehending violators of Republic Act No. 9165 in support of the PDEA. A buy-bust operation is not invalidated by mere non-coordination with the PDEA.

GR No. 181861

2011-10-17

RAUL DAVID v. PEOPLE

PERALTA, J.

Therefore, it is apparent from the above disquisition that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items seized were well-preserved. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as it would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[30] Anyway, this Court has consistently ruled that non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 will not necessarily render the items seized or confiscated in a buy-bust operation inadmissible.[31] Strict compliance with the letter of Section 21 is not required if there is a clear showing that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved, i.e., the items being offered in court as exhibits are, without a specter of doubt, the very same ones recovered in the buy-bust operation.[32] Hence, once the possibility of substitution has been negated by evidence of an unbroken and cohesive chain of custody over the contraband, such contraband may be admitted and stand as proof of the corpus delicti notwithstanding the fact that it was never made the subject of an inventory or was photographed pursuant to Section 21 (1) of Republic Act No. 9165.[33]

GR No. 185721

2011-09-28

PEOPLE v. RICKY UNISA Y ISLAN

PEREZ, J.

Further, emphasis must also be given to the fact that PO1 Natuel was present during the briefing on the conduct of their buy-bust operation against appellant. He has personal knowledge therefore about the manner and other significant details of the said buy-bust operation. Thus, he can properly attest to the veracity and truthfulness of the contents of the Pre-Operation Report/Coordination Sheet that was transmitted to PDEA. And, even on the assumption that the Pre-Operation Report/Coordination Sheet that was transmitted to PDEA is disregarded such that it is as though no coordination with PDEA was made, still the genuineness and legitimacy of the buy-bust operation against appellant would stand. In People v. Roa,[52] this Court made the following pronouncements, thus: In the first place, coordination with the PDEA is not an indispensable requirement before police authorities may carry out a buy-bust operation. While it is true that Section 86 [citation omitted] of Republic Act No. 9165 requires the National Bureau of Investigation, PNP and the Bureau of Customs to maintain "close coordination with the PDEA on all drug related matters," the provision does not, by so saying, make PDEA's participation a condition sine qua non for every buy-bust operation. After all, a buy-bust is just a form of an in flagrante arrest sanctioned by Section 5, Rule 113 [citation omitted] of the Rules of Court, which police authorities may rightfully resort to in apprehending violators of Republic Act No. 9165 in support of the PDEA [citation omitted]. A buy-bust operation is not invalidated by mere non-coordination with the PDEA.[53] [Emphasis supplied].

GR No. 186227

2011-07-20

PEOPLE v. ALLEN UDTOJAN MANTALABA

PERALTA, J.

The above only confirms that the buy-bust operation really occurred. Once again, this Court stresses that a buy-bust operation is a legally effective and proven procedure, sanctioned by law, for apprehending drug peddlers and distributors. [11] It is often utilized by law enforcers for the purpose of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the execution of their nefarious activities. [12] In People v. Roa, [13] this Court had the opportunity to expound on the nature and importance of a buy-bust operation, ruling that: In the first place, coordination with the PDEA is not an indispensable requirement before police authorities may carry out a buy-bust operation. While it is true that Section 86 [14] of Republic Act No. 9165 requires the National Bureau of Investigation, PNP and the Bureau of Customs to maintain "close coordination with the PDEA on all drug-related matters," the provision does not, by so saying, make PDEA's participation a condition sine qua non for every buy-bust operation. After all, a buy-bust is just a form of an in flagrante arrest sanctioned by Section 5, Rule 113 [15] of the Rules of the Court, which police authorities may rightfully resort to in apprehending violators of Republic Act No. 9165 in support of the PDEA. [16] A buy-bust operation is not invalidated by mere non-coordination with the PDEA.

GR No. 183676

2011-06-22

RUEL AMPATUAN 'ALIAS RUEL v. PEOPLE

PEREZ, J.

Further, the testimonies of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust are generally accorded full faith and credit, in view of the presumption of regularity in the performance of public duties. Hence, when lined against an unsubstantiated denial or claim of frame-up, the testimony of the officers who caught the accused red-handed is given more weight and usually prevails. [29] In order to overcome the presumption of regularity, jurisprudence teaches us that there must be clear and convincing evidence that the police officers did not properly perform their duties or that they were prompted with ill-motive. [30]

	GR No. 208015 2015-10-14	PEOPLE OF PHILIPINES v. RONWALDO LAFARAN Y ACLAN PEREZ, J.
Finally, as to the issue of the non-participation of the PDEA in the buy-bust operation, suffice it to say that coordination with the PDEA is not an indispensable requirement before police authorities may carry out a buy-bust operation. While it is true that Section 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 requires the National Bureau of Investigation, Philippine National Police, and the Bureau of Customs to maintain "close coordination with the PDEA on all drug related matters," the provision does not, by so saying, make PDEA's participation a condition sine qua non for every buy-bust operation. After all, a buy-bust is just a form of an in flagrante arrest sanctioned by Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, which police authorities may rightfully resort to in apprehending violators of Republic Act No. 9165 in support of the PDEA. A buy-bust operation is not invalidated by mere non-coordination with the PDEA.[44]
	GR No. 198024 2015-03-16	PEOPLE v. RAFAEL CUNANAN Y DAVID DEL CASTILLO, J.
Appellant's contention is untenable. "This Court has consistently ruled that non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of [RA] 9165 will not necessarily render the [item] seized or confiscated in a buy-bust operation inadmissible. Strict compliance with the letter of Section 21 is not required if there is a clear showing that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized [item] have been preserved, i.e., the [item] being offered in court as [exhibit is], without a specter of doubt, the very same [one] recovered in the buy-bust operation."[20] Thus, the primordial concern is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[21]
	GR No. 206366 2014-08-13	PEOPLE v. EDUARDO BALAQUIT Y BALDERAMA PEREZ, J.
Second. The appellant's qualm regarding the absence of coordination between the Camiling PNP and the PDEA is also immaterial. In People v. Roa,[14] this Court ruled that prior coordination with the PDEA is not a condition sine qua non for the validity of every entrapment operation conducted by police authorities: In the first place, coordination with the PDEA is not an indispensable requirement before police authorities may carry out a buy-bust operation. While it is true that Section 86[15] of Republic Act No. 9165 requires the National Bureau of Investigation, PNP and the Bureau of Customs to maintain "close coordination with the PDEA on all drug related matters," the provision does not, by so saying, make PDEA's participation a condition sine qua non for every buy-bust operation. After all, a buy-bust is just a form of an in flagrante arrest sanctioned by Section 5, Rule 113[16] of the Rules of the Court, which police authorities may rightfully resort to in apprehending violators of Republic Act No. 9165 in support of the PDEA.[17] A buy-bust operation is not invalidated by mere non-coordination with the PDEA.
	GR No. 201845 2013-03-06	PEOPLE v. EDGARDO ADRID Y FLORES VELASCO JR., J.
In the first place, coordination with the PDEA is not an indispensable requirement before police authorities may carry out a buy-bust operation. While it is true that Section 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 requires the National Bureau of Investigation, PNP and the Bureau of Customs to maintain "close coordination with the PDEA on all drug-related matters," the provision does not, by so saying, make PDEA's participation a condition sine qua non for every buy-bust operation. After all, a buy-bust is just a form of an in flagrante arrest sanctioned by Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of the Court, which police authorities may rightfully resort to in apprehending violators of Republic Act No. 9165 in support of the PDEA. A buy-bust operation is not invalidated by mere non-coordination with the PDEA.[33]
	GR No. 179936 2012-04-11	PEOPLE v. JAMAD ABEDIN Y JANDAL VILLARAMA, JR., J.
This Court, however, has already expounded on the nature and importance of a buy-bust operation and ruled that coordination with the PDEA is not an indispensable requirement before police authorities may carry out a buy-bust operation. While it is true that Section 86 of R.A. No. 9165 requires the National Bureau of Investigation, PNP and the Bureau of Customs to maintain "close coordination with the PDEA on all drug-related matters," the provision does not, by so saying, make PDEA's participation a condition sine qua non for every buy-bust operation. After all, a buy-bust is just a form of an in flagrante arrest sanctioned by Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of the Court which police authorities may rightfully resort to in apprehending violators of R.A. No. 9165 in support of the PDEA. A buy-bust operation is not invalidated by mere non-coordination with the PDEA.[33]
	GR No. 186141 2012-04-11	PEOPLE v. JESUSA FIGUEROA Y CORONADO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Accused-appellant's contention is unmeritorious. It is settled that Section 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 does not invalidate operations on account of the the law enforcers' failure to maintain close coordination with the PDEA. Thus, in People v. Berdadero,[13] the Court noted that Section 86, as well as the Internal Rules and Regulations implementing the same, is silent as to the consequences of the failure on the part of the law enforcers to seek the authority of the PDEA prior to conducting a buy-bust operation. This Court consequently held that "this silence [cannot] be interpreted as a legislative intent to make an arrest without the participation of PDEA illegal or evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible."[14] The same conclusion was reached by this Court in People v. Roa,[15] People v. Mantalaba[16] and People v. Sabadlab.[17]
	GR No. 189327 2012-02-29	PEOPLE v. EMILY MENDOZA Y SARTIN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Lack of coordination with the PDEA will not invalidate a buy-bust operation. This Court has declared that coordination with the PDEA is not an indispensable requirement in buy-bust operations. Neither Section 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 nor its Implementing Rules and Regulations make PDEA's participation a condition sine qua non for the conduct of a buy-bust operation, especially since a buy-bust operation is merely a form of an in flagrante arrest, which is sanctioned by Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.[38]
	GR No. 187736 2012-02-08	PEOPLE v. FLORDELIZA ARRIOLA Y DE LARA MENDOZA, J.
In the case of People v. Roa,[28] the Court explained that the requirement of coordination with the PDEA with respect to a buy-bust operation is not indispensable. In said case, it said: In the first place, coordination with the PDEA is not an indispensable requirement before police authorities may carry out a buy-bust operation. While it is true that Section 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 requires the National Bureau of Investigation, PNP and the Bureau of Customs to maintain "close coordination with the PDEA on all drug-related matters," the provision does not, by so saying, make PDEA's participation a condition sine qua non for every buy-bust operation. After all, a buy-bust is just a form of an in flagrante arrest sanctioned by Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of the Court, which police authorities may rightfully resort to in apprehending violators of Republic Act No. 9165 in support of the PDEA. A buy-bust operation is not invalidated by mere non-coordination with the PDEA.
	GR No. 181861 2011-10-17	RAUL DAVID v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
Therefore, it is apparent from the above disquisition that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items seized were well-preserved. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as it would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[30] Anyway, this Court has consistently ruled that non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 will not necessarily render the items seized or confiscated in a buy-bust operation inadmissible.[31] Strict compliance with the letter of Section 21 is not required if there is a clear showing that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved, i.e., the items being offered in court as exhibits are, without a specter of doubt, the very same ones recovered in the buy-bust operation.[32] Hence, once the possibility of substitution has been negated by evidence of an unbroken and cohesive chain of custody over the contraband, such contraband may be admitted and stand as proof of the corpus delicti notwithstanding the fact that it was never made the subject of an inventory or was photographed pursuant to Section 21 (1) of Republic Act No. 9165.[33]
	GR No. 185721 2011-09-28	PEOPLE v. RICKY UNISA Y ISLAN PEREZ, J.
Further, emphasis must also be given to the fact that PO1 Natuel was present during the briefing on the conduct of their buy-bust operation against appellant. He has personal knowledge therefore about the manner and other significant details of the said buy-bust operation. Thus, he can properly attest to the veracity and truthfulness of the contents of the Pre-Operation Report/Coordination Sheet that was transmitted to PDEA. And, even on the assumption that the Pre-Operation Report/Coordination Sheet that was transmitted to PDEA is disregarded such that it is as though no coordination with PDEA was made, still the genuineness and legitimacy of the buy-bust operation against appellant would stand. In People v. Roa,[52] this Court made the following pronouncements, thus: In the first place, coordination with the PDEA is not an indispensable requirement before police authorities may carry out a buy-bust operation. While it is true that Section 86 [citation omitted] of Republic Act No. 9165 requires the National Bureau of Investigation, PNP and the Bureau of Customs to maintain "close coordination with the PDEA on all drug related matters," the provision does not, by so saying, make PDEA's participation a condition sine qua non for every buy-bust operation. After all, a buy-bust is just a form of an in flagrante arrest sanctioned by Section 5, Rule 113 [citation omitted] of the Rules of Court, which police authorities may rightfully resort to in apprehending violators of Republic Act No. 9165 in support of the PDEA [citation omitted]. A buy-bust operation is not invalidated by mere non-coordination with the PDEA.[53] [Emphasis supplied].
	GR No. 186227 2011-07-20	PEOPLE v. ALLEN UDTOJAN MANTALABA PERALTA, J.
The above only confirms that the buy-bust operation really occurred. Once again, this Court stresses that a buy-bust operation is a legally effective and proven procedure, sanctioned by law, for apprehending drug peddlers and distributors. [11] It is often utilized by law enforcers for the purpose of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the execution of their nefarious activities. [12] In People v. Roa, [13] this Court had the opportunity to expound on the nature and importance of a buy-bust operation, ruling that: In the first place, coordination with the PDEA is not an indispensable requirement before police authorities may carry out a buy-bust operation. While it is true that Section 86 [14] of Republic Act No. 9165 requires the National Bureau of Investigation, PNP and the Bureau of Customs to maintain "close coordination with the PDEA on all drug-related matters," the provision does not, by so saying, make PDEA's participation a condition sine qua non for every buy-bust operation. After all, a buy-bust is just a form of an in flagrante arrest sanctioned by Section 5, Rule 113 [15] of the Rules of the Court, which police authorities may rightfully resort to in apprehending violators of Republic Act No. 9165 in support of the PDEA. [16] A buy-bust operation is not invalidated by mere non-coordination with the PDEA.
	GR No. 183676 2011-06-22	RUEL AMPATUAN 'ALIAS RUEL v. PEOPLE PEREZ, J.
Further, the testimonies of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust are generally accorded full faith and credit, in view of the presumption of regularity in the performance of public duties. Hence, when lined against an unsubstantiated denial or claim of frame-up, the testimony of the officers who caught the accused red-handed is given more weight and usually prevails. [29] In order to overcome the presumption of regularity, jurisprudence teaches us that there must be clear and convincing evidence that the police officers did not properly perform their duties or that they were prompted with ill-motive. [30]

PEOPLE v. JOEL ROA Y VILLALUZ