People V Mapan Le

People v. Mapan Le (G.R. No. 188976, prom.
June 29, 2010)

VIOLATION OF RA 9165
FACTS
Jakar Mapan Le alias “Ankaw” and Rodel Del Castillo alias “Rodel” were found guilty of violating
Section 5 in relation to Section 26 of RA 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Pasig City Police Station received an information from a confidential informant that Ankar and
Rodel were selling shabu in Palatiw, Pasig City. PO2 Richard Noble noticed that the two men tagged
in the information were included in their drug watch list.
After preparing a pre-operation report and coordinating with the PDEA, the office of the Pasig City
Police Station organized a buy-bust operation and designated PO2 Noble as the poseur-buyer.
***PO2 Noble placed his initials “RN” on the buy-bust money consisting of two (2) P100.00 bills.
ALBIOLA
***PO2 Noble, PO1 Mendoza and their colleagues headed to the place of Ankar and Rodel. When
Ankar and Rodel were spotted, the informant talked to Ankar and introduced PO2 Noble as a
regular shabu buyer. PO2 Noble was asked by Ankar how much he wanted to purchase, and the
former gave the latter the marked money. Rodel was then instructed to give PO2 Noble a plastic
sachet.
***Noble examined the contents of the plastic bag and proceeded to scratch his head to mark the
consummation of the transaction. Thereafter, Ankar and Rodel were arrested. The buy-bust money
was retrieved by PO1 Mendoza from Ankar, while PO2 Noble marked the plastic sachet received
from Rodel.
***ANKAR’S VERSION he was inside his house with his family when four male strangers entered
and frisked him but nothing was found on his person. He asked if they had a warrant but they told
him that they had no warrant. Despite this, he was still brought outside and boarded in a red car; he
was told that he will be taken to their office.
***RODEL’S VERSION he was washing his hands in a deep-well pump in front of Ankar’s house
when several police officers approached him and asked if he knew who Ankar was, to which he
replied in the negative. He thereafter saw three of the police officers went inside Ankar’s house.
After sometime, he was called by PO2 Noble and was asked again if he knew Ankar, to which he
replied that he did not. He was boarded in the car with Ankar and were brought to Rizal Medical
Center where they were made to sign a document. ***They were not brough to the crime
laboratory for drug testing but were instead escorted to the Parancillo police station. He alleged
that he was beaten up by the police officers.
***NORHAYA, Ankar’s daughter, corroborated her father’s testimony.
***Accused-appellants maintain that (1) the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies on how the buy-
bust operation occurred were completely different from each other; (2) the non-presentation of the
marked money the team used is also questioned; (3) the prosecution’s evidence is likewise attacked
for having a missing link in the chain of custody of over the subject shabu and for non-compliance
with Sec. 21 of RA 9165 as well as its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR).
The defense further argues that no justifiable reason was offered for such non-compliance.
ISSUE
Whether the non-presentation of the marked-money did not create a hiatus in the evidence of the
prosecution as the sale of the shabu was adequately proven and the shabu itself was presented
before the court.
Whether the CA erred in finding accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
HELD
In the present case, the essential elements of the illegal sale of shabu were established. (1) the
identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery
of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 13 What is material is proof that the transaction
actually took place, along with the presentation in court of the illegal substance which
constitutes the corpus delicti of the crime.
Accused-appellants’ argument on the failure to present the marked money in court is not only
ALBIOLA
without merit but baseless. Two (2) One hundred peso (Php100) bills were presented as evidence
as the buy-bust money used and marked as Exhibits “E” and “F.” Moreover, the presentation of
buy-bust money is not required by law or jurisprudence.
***Its non-presentation is not fatal to the case for the prosecution. The marked money used in the
buy-bust operation is not indispensable but merely corroborative in nature.
*** Chain of Custody—We likewise affirm the findings of both lower courts on the issue of chain of
custody. What is important is the preservation of the identity and integrity of the seized shabu.
Links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation, viz: first, the
seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to
the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the
forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the
marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.
In the instant case, the links in the chain are the following:
(1) At the scene of the buy-bust operation, Castillo handed the plastic sachet to PO2 Noble,
who immediately marked it with his initials;
(2) The plastic sachet was brought to the laboratory for examination per Request for
Laboratory Examination (Exhibit “A”) signed by Police Inspector Earl B. Castillo;
(3) According to Physical Science Report No. D-0670-04E (Exhibit “B”) prepared by
Forensic Chemist Lourdeliza Gural Cejes, the two (2) grams inside the seized sachet tested
positive for shabu.

People V Mapan Le

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People V Mapan Le

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People V Mapan Le

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Mapan Le (G.R. No. 188976, prom.

June 29, 2010)

***NORHAYA, Ankar’s daughter, corroborated her father’s testimony.

Whether the CA erred in finding accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.