Evangelista, Alma E.

09 April 2022
BSC 2-1 LEAD 4

Assignment
Answer
1. Case: People vs. Cunanan
G.R. No. 198024 | March 16, 2015
Justice Del Castillo
Facts of the case :
Rafael Cunanan was charged with the crime of illegal sale of
dangerous drugs. He was arrested after the authorities conducted an
entrapment operation and they confiscated from him the methamphetamine
hydrochloride, or Shabu and two marked 100-peso bills used as buy-bust
money.
The Defense Argument :
In his defense, Rafael Cunanan denied the charged and interposed
the defenses of denial and frame-up/extortion. A witness for the defense,
Genedina Guevarra Ignacio saw all the events from the conversation
between the accused and the police until the appellant handcuffed and
frisked by the policemen and took away his wallet and cellphone.

The Lower Courts’ Argument :

The Regional Trial Court of Pasig City convicted the accused for the
crime of possession and sale of illegal drugs and imposed the penalty of
life imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(Php500,000.00).
What is the Issue ?
There was no in flagrante delicto arrest as he was not committing any
crime at the time he was apprehended and the appellant was lawfully
arrested.

The Ruling :
No. The prosecution sufficiently proved that a sale transaction took
place. That the said transaction involved the illegal sale of dangerous drug
was sufficiently shown by the prosecution through its establishment of the
following elements of the offense. (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller
, object , and consideration , and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment thereof. Appellant was lawfully arrested after he was caught in
flagrante delicto , selling Shabu in a buy-bust operation.

The Disposition :
WHEREFORE, the conviction of Appellant Rafael Cunanan y David
for the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs was AFFIRMED. Appellant
Rafael Cunanan y David was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and sentencing
him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of
P500,000.00, is AFFIRMED with the modification that appellant shall not be
eligible for parole.

The Doctrine :
Elements of an Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs.- The prosecution
successfully proved that appellant violated Section 15, Article III of RA
6425. The prosecution’s evidence established the concurrence of the
elements of an illegal sale of a dangerous drug, to wit: (1) the identity of the
buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing
sold and the payment therefor.
2. Case : Comerciante vs. People
G.R. No. 205926 | July 22, 2015
Justice Perlas- Bernabe

Facts of the case :

Alvin Comerciante was charged with the crime of Illegal Possession
of Dangerous Drugs. He was arrested by the authorities together with
Dasilla that in the end, the latter filed a demurrer to evidence, which was
granted by the RTC, thus his acquittal. The policemen confiscated 2
sachets of confirmed contain Shabu.

The Defense Argument :

In his defense, Comerciante averred that PO3 Calag was looking for
a certain “Barok”, who was a notorious drug pusher in the area, when
suddenly, he and Dasilla, who were just standing in front of a jeepney along
Private Road, were arrested and taken to a police station. There, the police
officers claimed to have confiscated illegal drugs from them and were
asked money in exchange for their release. When they failed to accede to
the demand, they were brought to another police station to undergo inquest
proceedings, and thereafter, were charged with illegal possession of
dangerous drugs.

The Lower Courts’ Argument :

The Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City convicted the accused
of the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs and sentenced him
to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for twelve (12) years and one (1) day
to twenty (20) years, and ordered him to pay a fine in the amount of
P300,000.00.
What is the Issue ?
The core Issue for the Court’s resolution is whether or not the CA
correctly affirmed Comerciante’s conviction for violation of Section 11,
Article II of RA 9165.

The Ruling :
No. The CA affirmed that Comerciante’s Conviction. It held that PO3
Calag had a probable cause to effect the warrantless arrest for the accused
given that the latter was committing a crime in flagrante delicto and the
police personally saw the latter exchanging plastic sachets of Shabu to the
acquittal, Dasilla. This is enough evidence for the said of crime.
Under Section 2, Article III of the Constitution mandates that a search
and seizure must be carried out through or on the strength of a judicial
warrant predicated upon the existence of probable cause; in the absence of
such warrant, such search and seizure becomes, as a general rule,
“unreasonable” within the meaning of said constitutional provision. To
protect people from unreasonable searches and seizures,
Section 3 (2), Article III of the Constitution provides an exclusionary
rule which instructs that evidence obtained and confiscated on the occasion
of such unreasonable searches and seizures are deemed tainted and
should be excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree. In
other words, evidence obtained from unreasonable searches and seizures
shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding.

The Disposition :
WHEREFORE, the conviction of Appellant Alvin Comerciante y
Gonzales is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime of violating Section 11,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The Director of the Bureau of
Corrections is ordered to cause his immediate release, unless he is being
lawfully held for any other reason.
 The Doctrines :
Exclusionary Rule
✔️To protect people from unreasonable searches and seizures, Section
3(2), Article III of the Constitution provides an exclusionary rule which
instructs that evidence obtained and confiscated during unreasonable
searches and seizures are deemed tainted and should be excluded for
being the fruit of a poisonous tree. Such pieces of evidence are therefore
inadmissible.
✔️The law requires that there first be a lawful arrest before a search can be
made and this process cannot be done in the reverse.
✔️While the stop and frisk is an instance wherein a warrantless is allowed,
the same cannot be done without probable cause based on the
circumstances.
✔️For a warrantless arrest to operate the following elements must be met:
💠 Person arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has
just committed, is actually committing or is attempting to commit a crime;
and
💠Such act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting
officer (there is personal knowledge on the part of the officer).