G.R. No. 185719; June 17, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, vs. MARCELINO COLLADO Y CUNANAN, MYRA COLLADO Y SENICA, MARK CIPRIANO Y ROCERO, SAMUEL SHERWIN LATARIO Y ENRIQUE, AND REYNALDO RANADA Y ALAS, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

FACTS

Appellants were charged with various violations of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) following a buy-bust operation on October 9, 2004. Spouses Marcelino and Myra Collado were charged with sale of dangerous drugs and maintenance of a drug den. Marcelino was separately charged with illegal possession. Appellants Mark Cipriano, Samuel Latario, and Reynaldo Ranada, along with other co-accused, were charged with possession of drug paraphernalia. The prosecution evidence established that a police team, after surveillance and coordination, conducted a buy-bust where PO2 Noble, as poseur-buyer, purchased shabu from Marcelino, who directed payment to Myra. Upon arrest, a body search on Marcelino yielded another sachet of shabu. Inside the residence, the other appellants were allegedly found with various drug paraphernalia.
The accused denied the charges, claiming they were framed. They alleged the police forcibly entered their home without a warrant, arrested them, and planted evidence. The Regional Trial Court convicted all accused. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions of the Collados and Ranada but acquitted Cipriano, Latario, and the other co-accused of the paraphernalia charge due to insufficient evidence of possession.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in overcoming the presumption of regularity in the police officers’ performance of duty with clear and convincing evidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the modified decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court upheld the convictions of spouses Marcelino and Myra Collado for sale of dangerous drugs and maintenance of a drug den, and of Marcelino for illegal possession. It also affirmed the conviction of Reynaldo Ranada for possession of drug paraphernalia. However, it acquitted Mark Cipriano and Samuel Latario, affirming their acquittal by the CA.
The legal logic centers on the presumption of regularity accorded to police officers in the performance of their official duties. The Court ruled that the appellants’ mere denial and claims of frame-up, being self-serving and unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, were insufficient to rebut this presumption. For the Collados, the prosecution successfully established all elements of the crimes through the credible testimony of the poseur-buyer regarding the sale and the subsequent recovery of drugs from Marcelino. For Ranada, his being caught in flagrante delicto inside the den with paraphernalia in plain view established possession. Conversely, for Cipriano and Latario, the prosecution failed to prove specific overt acts constituting possession of the paraphernalia, creating reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that while the presumption of regularity is not absolute, it prevails over bare allegations absent proof of ill motive or procedural lapses in the buy-bust operation that would taint the evidence’s integrity.