People v. Umipang G.R. No. 190321, April 25, 2012

representatives from the media, the DOJ, and any
People v. publicly elected official were present. Section 86 of

RA 9165 was also not followed as the PDEA was
UmipangG.R. No. 190321, April 25, not contacted with regards to the operation.
2012 Although failure to follow Sec. 21, Art. II of RA 9165
ipso facto is not fatal to the prosecution’s case, it
FACTS: On April 1, 2006 at around 6PM, a buy- must be shown why such was not carried out by
bust team from the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs- (1) justifiable cause and (2) preservation of the inte
Special Operation Task Force (SAID-SOTF) of the grity and evidentiary value of the seized
Taguig City Police descended along Cagayan de items were guaranteed. Court maintains that
OroStreet, Maharlika Village, Taguig City after a presumption of regularity in the performance of
confidential informant reported a certain “Sam” was official functions cannot overrule the step- by-step
selling drugs upon aforesaid place. PO2 Ruchyl procedure outlined in RA 9165 as it is a matter
Gasid acted as poseur-buyer and was given PHP of substantive law. The court further asserts that
500 marked money. PO2 Gasid and confidential the conduct itself of the buy-bust team was
informant, upon finding “Sam”, asked the latter defective for the following reasons: (1) material
if they could buy PHP 500 worth of drugs. “Sam” inconsistencies in the marking of the evidence. This
then took out 3 plastic sachets containing a white is shown by the admission of PO2 Gasid, who
crystalline substance with various price tags –500, marked the seized items with the accused-
300, 100. After making the choice PO2 Gasid paid appellant initials “SAU” (Sammy Abdul Umipang)
“Sam” PHP 500. Upon receipt of money, PO2 allegedly at the scene of the operation. However,
Gasid took of his cap as pre-arranged signal that PO2 Gasid admits that prior to the operation he did
the sale has been consummated. Sensing danger not know of the identity or full name of the accused,
“Sam” attempted to flee the scene but was promptly the latter being only known as “Sam.” It was PO2
accosted by the other members of the buy-bust Saez, in the police station, who got “Sam’s” full
team. Five more marked sachets containing the name. (2) SAID-SOTF did not show genuine and
same white crystalline substance were recovered sufficient third party representatives enumerated in
from “Sam” and promptly marked “SAU” (Sammy A. Sec. 21, Art. II of RA 9165 as evidenced by PO2
Umipang) by PO2 Gasid. For the sale of the sachet Gasid’s admission during cross-examination that no
of 0.05 gram of shabu, which violates Sec. 5, Art. II effort was made to contact the barangay captain or
of RA 9165, the RTC of Pasig City sentenced any barangay official of Brgy. Maharlika. (3) SAID-
accused-appellant to life imprisonment and fined SOTF did not properly accomplish the Certificate of
PHP 500,000. For possession of 5 sachets of Inventory. PO2Gasid, who prepared such
shabu with total weight of 0.23 gram, which is a document, did not sign it.Court sets aside the
violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of RA 9165, the same decision of the CA affirming the July 24, 2007 RTC
court sentenced accused-appellant to an decision and acquitsSammy A. Umipang of the
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of 12 years crimes charged herein and ordered released
and 1dayminimum to 14 years, 21 days as immediately.
maximum and fined PHP 300,000. On appeal, CA
affirmed the lower court’s decision in toto.
ISSUE: Did the RTC and the CA err in finding the

testimonial evidence of the prosecution witnesses
as sufficient to convict accused-appellant of the
alleged sale and possession of
methylamphetamine HCL, which are violations of
Secs. 5 and 11, Art. II of RA 9165 respectively?
RULING: No, the Court reiterates once again that

buy-bust operations, although proven to be an
efficient way to flush out illegal transactions, are
also susceptible to police abuse. Hence, strict
adherence to procedures laid down by RA 9165,
specifically Sec. 21, Art. II must be followed. It is
evident that said section was blatantly disregarded
by the buy-bust team when no proper inventory
was done, no photographs taken and no

People v. Umipang G.R. No. 190321, April 25, 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Umipang G.R. No. 190321, April 25, 2012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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. Umipang G.R. No. 190321, April 25, 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

representatives from the media, the DOJ, and any

People v. publicly elected official were present. Section 86 of

ISSUE: Did the RTC and the CA err in finding the

RULING: No, the Court reiterates once again that

You might also like