People vs Dela Cruz appellant of the dangerous drug, being actual participants of the buy-
GR # 205414 bust operation. Indeed, a buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment, in
Rule 113 | April 2016 |
Nature of the Case: Warrantless Arrests in relation to the RA 9165
Digest Maker: Nasrifah Langco
Summary: Appellant asserts that the non-compliance with Section 21 of the RA No.
9165 renders his arrest invalid.
Doctrine: non-compliance with Section 21 of RA No. 9165 shall not necessarily
render the arrest of an accused as illegal.
FACTS:
1) Accused was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5
of Article II of RA 9165
2) Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty. Consequently, the trial on
the merits ensued.
3) Prosecution’s case:
a. A confidential informant arrived at the police station informing the
policemen about the illegal drug activities being conducted by
accused.
b. Policemen immediately informed their station commander who
tasks the unit to conduct a buy-bust operation. They prepared the
marked buy-bust money and their signal when the transaction
would be consummated and the accused may be arrested.
c. The poseur-buyer/policemen and the informant went straight the
destination while the other policemen positioned themselves about
10 meters away.
d. Thereafter, poseur-buyer asked for Valium, which the accused
gave. PB gave the marked money. Immediately thereafter, he also
executed the pre-arranged signal.
4) Accused was arrested. RTC found him guilty.
5) On appeal, appellant raised the illegality of his arrest. He contends that the
police officers should have obtained a judicial warrant to validly effect his
arrest. CA sustained the conviction.
6) Hence this petition.
ISSUE/RATIO:
1) W/N there was a valid arrest? – YES
a) Contrary to appellant’s claims, there is overwhelming evidence that he
was actually committing a crime in the presence of the police officers
who arrested him without a warrant. To repeat, straightforward and
unwavering testimonies were presented by the prosecution narrating, in
detail, how the police officers personally witnessed the sale by
which the violator is caught in flagrante delicto and the police officers
conducting the operation are not only authorized, but duty-bound, to
apprehend the violator and to search him for anything that may have
been part of or used in the commission of the crime. Against the
positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, appellant’s plain
denial of the offense charged, unsubstantiated by any credible and
convincing evidence, must simply fail.
b) As for appellant’s contention that the prosecution failed to establish that
the items seized from him were the very same items presented and
proved in court due to its non-compliance with the requirements under
Section 21 of RA No. 9165 mandating the arresting officers to take
photographs and conduct a physical inventory of the items seized, the
Court is not convinced.
c) The Court has, time and again, ruled that non-compliance with Section
21 of RA No. 9165 shall not necessarily render the arrest of an accused
as illegal or the items seized as inadmissible if the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved in
compliance with the chain of custody rule.
d) The Court explained the rule on the chain of custody to be as follows:
a. The rule on chain of custody expressly demands the
identification of the persons who handle the confiscated items
for the purpose of duly monitoring the authorized movements
of the illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia from the time
they are seized from the accused until the time they are
presented in court. Moreover, as a method of authenticating
evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission
of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a
finding that the matter in question is what the proponent
claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in
the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time
it is offered in evidence, in such manner that every person who
touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it
was received, where it was and what happened to it while in
the witness’ possession, the condition in which it was received
and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in
the chain. These witnesses would then describe the
precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in
the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not
in the chain to have possession of the same.
Ruling:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DISMISSED.
Additional Notes:
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered
Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and
Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. –
The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources
of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or
surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

(1) The apprehending 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.

Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA No. 9165:

(a) 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[.]