3781 JD4101

I. Case Treatment of an Earlier Case

CITED:

The justification that underlies the legitimacy of the buy-bust operation is that the suspect is
arrested in flagrante delicto, that is, the suspect has just committed, or is in the act of committing,
or is attempting to commit the offense in the presence of the arresting police officer or private
person. The arresting police officer or private person is favored in such instance with the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. (People v. Ampuan)

DISCUSSED:

As discussed in People v. Ampuan, there would be no valid buy-bust operation when the
arresting team had not coordinated the matter with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
(PDEA). A buy-bust is "just a form of an in flagrante arrest sanctioned by Section 5, Rule 113 of the
Rules of Court [sic], which police authorities may rightfully resort to in apprehending violators. A
buy-bust operation is not invalidated by mere non-coordination with the PDEA.

FOLLOWED:

From the foregoing, the sole issue before us is whether or not the RTC and the CA erred in
finding the testimonial evidence of the prosecution witnesses sufficient to warrant appellant's
conviction for the crimes charged.

We reverse the judgment made by the appellate court.

Following People v. Ampuan, while prior coordination with the PDEA is not necessary to make a
buy-bust operation valid, we are constrained to reverse the findings of the CA because the non-
presentation of the poseur-buyer is fatal to the cause of the prosecution.

DISTINGUISHED:

In the interpretation of such case, the settled principle of People v. Ampuan is declared by the
Court:

This interpretation is premised on the legal reasoning that "when the inculpatory facts
and circumstances are capable of two (2) or more explanations, one of which is consistent
with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the
evidence does not fulfill the test of moral ce1iainty and is not sufficient to support a
conviction." In light of the pronouncements above, We deem it unnecessary to discuss
other issues raised by both parties.

OVERRULED:

In People v. Ampuan, while there is a "need to hide [the poseur-buyers] identit[ies] and
preserve their invaluable service to the police," this consideration cannot be applied to this case,
because, as in Andaya, the "poseur-buyer and the confidential informant were one and the
same. Without the poseur buyer's testimony, the State did not credibly incriminate [the
accused]." The testimonies of prosecution witnesses cannot be considered as eyewitness
 accounts of the illegal sale. There was no indication that they directly saw an illegal drug being
sold to the poseur-buyer. The police officer, who admitted that he was seven (7) to eight (8)
meters away from where the actual transaction took place, could not be deemed an eyewitness
to the crime.

3781 JD4101

II. Analysis of a Court Decision

1. Is the court’s decision appropriate?

- Yes, it is appropriate. The Court looked closely on how the extrinsic process of arrest
of criminals guilty of dangerous drugs. It should be looked upon the authorities in
order to avoid mistakes and mishaps on arrest.
2. Does the decision change/modify/conform with an existing law?
- The decision conforms with RA No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act, keeping in mind the process on how arrest must be done in order to prevent
inadmissibility of evidence and further, acquitting the accused.
3. Is the reasoning consistent with previous reasoning in a similar case?
- Yes it is consistent. Such law lays down the rules needed to be complied by officials.
Ignorance or missing of a step in the process makes the case inadmissible.
4. Is the court’s interpretation of the law appropriate?
- Yes, it applies to the case consistently and correctly.
5. Is it likely that the decision will significantly influence an existing law?
- I think not. Given that it has rules on such case, it must be followed strictly by
officials.
6. Does the court adequately justify its reasoning?
- Yes they did.
7. Is the reasoning logical or consistent?
- It is logical and consistent. Logical, in the sense that the Court looked strictly on the
process and further seeing an error, leading to the decision. Consistent, in the sense
that it really abides with the rules made by the law.
8. Does the court consider all/omit some issues and arguments? And, if there was
omission, does this weaken the merit of the decision?
- The court omits the arguments of the officials who conducted the arrest. However,
this strengthened the court’s decision, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
9. What are the policy implications of the decision?
- Process must be strictly followed to avoid inadmissibility.
10. Are there alternative approaches which may lead to more appropriate public policy in
this area?
- There should be exceptions as to the law, so that potential drug dealers will be
caught with the necessary process done.
3781 JD4101

III. Alternative Court Decision

SUPREME COURT
FIRST DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee

-versus- G.R. No. 215942

KUSAIN AMIN y AMPUAN, a.k.a.

“Cocoy”, Accused-Appellant
Date: January 18, 2017
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
SERENO, CJ:
DECISION
This is an appeal assailing the Decision' of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No.
01179, which affirmed the Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 40, Cagayan
de Oro City, in Criminal Case No. 2004-010. The RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs under Section 5, paragraph
1, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165.
FACTS
That on January 2, 2004, at 5:40 p.m. more or less, at Landless, Colrai, Macabalan,
Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused without authority of law, did then and there wilfully and feloniously
have in his possession, custody and control one (1) small heated-sealed transparent plastic
sachet of white crystalline substance locally known as shabu with 3pprox.. weight of 0.09
gram valued to more or less P100 and sold it to a poseur-buyer of PNP-CDO for a
consideration of Pl 00.00 marked money one (1) pc one hundred pesos bill with serial
number FA246643, well knowing it to be a dangerous drug.
 ISSUE
From the foregoing, the sole issue before us is whether or not the RTC and the CA erred
in finding the testimonial evidence of the prosecution witnesses sufficient to warrant
appellant’s conviction for the crimes charged.
RULING
NO. We are of the opinion that Ampuan is guilty of the crime of illegal sale of prohibited
drugs under Section 5, paragraph 1, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, better known
as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.
Section 5, paragraph 1, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, better known as the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act states that:
Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and
Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from
Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos
(P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by
law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another,
distribute dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and
all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or
shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.i
Also, to take note of the process of lawful warrantless arrest, Section 5, Rule 113 of the
Rules of Court states that:

Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. – A peace officer or a private

person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to
believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person
to be arrested has committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily
confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from
one confinement to another.
 In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested
without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or
jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule 112.ii

Applying it to the case, the officials rendered a lawful arrest to Ampuan, which, at the
moment, is “committing an offense”, in such case, selling a sachet of shabu to the poseur-buyer,
compelling the officials to act on it and arrest Ampuan.

Such case qualifies to the lawful arrest of Ampuan as per the Rules of Court, making
him guilty under RA 9165.

WHEREFORE, the Court CONFORMS the Court of Appeals Decision dated 16 October 2014 in CA-
GR. CR-I-LC. No. 01179 affirming the Decision dated 14 June 2013 issued by the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 40, Cagayan de Oro City, in Criminal Case No. 2004-01 O; and charges accused-
appellant KUSAIN AMIN y AMPUAN GUILTY of the crime charged in Criminal Case No. 2004-010
on the ground of reasonable doubt. Therefore, he is to serve life imprisonment or pay the fine of
five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00).

SO ORDERED.

i
AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC
ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED,
PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. (DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972).
Republic Act No. 9165. June 7, 2002. Section 5.
ii
THE REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (As amended, December 1, 2000). Rule 113. Section 5.