G.R. No. 125299 - People v. Doria y Bolado

EN BANC
[G.R. No. 125299. January 22, 1999.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , plaintiff-appellee, vs . FLORENCIO

DORIA Y BOLADO and VIOLETA GADDAO Y CATAMA @ "NENETH,"
accused-appellants.
Singson Valdez & Associates for Gaddao.

Arias Law Office for Doria.
SYNOPSIS
Accused-appellants were charged with violation of Section 4, in relation to Section

21 of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. After trial, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 156,
Pasig City convicted accused-appellants. The trial court found the existence of an
"organized/syndicated crime group" and sentenced both accused-appellants to death and
pay a ne of P500,000.00 each. In the present appeal, accused-appellant Doria contend
that the trial court gravely erred in admitting as evidence the marijuana fruitings found
inside the carton box because they were obtained through a warrantless search and does
not come within the plain view doctrine. Accused-appellant Gaddao, on the other hand,
assails the validity of warrantless search leading to the seizure of the marijuana inside her
house.
The Supreme Court reversed and modi ed the decision of the trial court. Accused-
appellant Doria's sentence was reduced from death to reclusion perpetua and appellant
Gaddao was acquitted. Accused Gaddao was not caught red-handed during the buy-bust
operation to give ground for her arrest under Section 5 (a) of Rule 113 of the Rules of
Court. She was not committing any crime. Since the warrantless arrest of Gaddao was
illegal, it follows that the search of her person and home and the subsequent seizure of the
marked bills and marijuana cannot be deemed legal as an incident to her arrest. The Court,
however, upheld appellant Doria's warrantless arrest. The Court also upheld the validity of
the buy-bust operation wherein Doria was caught in the act of selling marijuana. The Court
reiterated the doctrine that when an, accused is apprehended in agrante delicto as a
result of a buy-bust operation, the law enforcement agents are not only authorized but also
duty-bound, to arrest him even without a warrant. EITcaH
SYLLABUS
1. CRIMINAL LAW; DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972; THE "OBJECTIVE TEST"

IN BUY BUST OPERATIONS DEMANDS THAT THE DETAILS OF THE PURPORTED
TRANSACTION MUST BE CLEARLY AND ADEQUATELY SHOWN. — We stress that the
"objective" test in buy-bust operations demands that the details of the purported
transaction must be clearly and adequately shown. This must start from the initial contact
between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment
of the consideration until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug
subject of the sale. The manner by which the initial contact was made, whether or not
through an informant, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the "buy-bust" money,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
and the delivery of the illegal drug, whether to the informant alone or the police o cer,
must be the subject of strict scrutiny by courts to insure that law-abiding citizens are not
unlawfully induced to commit an offense. Criminals must be caught but not at all cost. At
the same time, however, examining the conduct of the police should not disable courts into
ignoring the accused's predisposition to commit the crime. If there is overwhelming
evidence of habitual deliquency, recidivism or plain criminal proclivity, then this must also
be considered. Courts should look at all factors to determine the predisposition of an
accused to commit an offense in so far as they are relevant to determine the validity of the
defense of inducement. CaTSEA
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; NON-PRESENTATION OF THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT IS NOT

FATAL TO THE PROSECUTION'S CAUSE IN CASE AT BAR. — In the case at bar, the
evidence shows that it was the con dential informant who initially contacted accused-
appellant Doria. At the pre-arranged meeting, the informant was accompanied by PO3
Manlangit who posed as the buyer of marijuana. PO3 Manlangit handed the marked money
to accused-appellant Doria as advance payment for one (1) kilo of marijuana. Accused-
appellant Doria was apprehended when he later returned and handed the brick of
marijuana to PO3 Manlangit. PO3 Manlangit testi ed in a frank, spontaneous,
straightforward and categorical manner and his credibility was not crumpled on cross-
examination by defense counsel. Moreover, PO3 Manlangit's testimony was corroborated
on its material points by SPO1 Badua, his back-up security. The non-presentation of the
con dential informant is not fatal to the prosecution. Informants are usually not presented
in court because of the need to hide their identity and preserve their invaluable service to
the police. It is well-settled that except when the appellant vehemently denies selling
prohibited drugs and there are material inconsistencies in the testimonies of the arresting
o cers, or there are reasons to believe that the arresting o cers had motives to testify
falsely against the appellant, or that only the informant was the poseur-buyer who actually
witnessed the entire transaction, the testimony of the informant may be dispensed with as
it will merely be corroborative of the apprehending o cers' eyewitness testimonies. There
is no need to present the informant in court where the sale was actually witnessed and
adequately proved by prosecution witnesses.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; SOURCE OF MONEY FOR THE BUY-BUST OPERATION IS NOT A
CRITICAL FACT; IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE PROSECUTION PROVED THAT THE MONEY
WAS PAID TO THE ACCUSED IN CONSIDERATION OF WHICH HE SOLD AND DELIVERED
THE PROHIBITED EFFECTS. — The inconsistencies in PO3 Manlangit's and SPO1 Badua's
testimonies and the other police o cers' testimonies are minor and do not detract from
the veracity and weight of the prosecution evidence. The source of the money for the buy-
bust operation is not a critical fact in the case at bar. It is enough that the prosecution
proved that money was paid to accused-appellant Doria in consideration of which he sold
and delivered the marijuana.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; NO RULE OF LAW WHICH REQUIRES THAT IN BUY-BUST
OPERATIONS THERE MUST BE A SIMULTANEOUS EXCHANGE OF MARKED MONEY AND
PROHIBITED DRUG BETWEEN THE BUYER AND THE POSEUR-BUYER; THE DECISIVE FACT
IS THAT THE POSEUR-BUYER RECEIVED THE MARIJUANA FROM THE ACCUSED. — We
also reject appellant's submission that the fact that PO3 Manlangit and his team waited
for almost one hour for appellant Doria to give them the one kilo of marijuana after he
"paid" P1,600.00 strains credulity. Appellant cannot capitalize on the circumstance that the
money and the marijuana in the case at bar did not change hands under the usual
"kaliwaan" system. There is no rule of law which requires that in "buy-bust" operations there
must be a simultaneous exchange of the marked money and the prohibited drug between
the poseur-buyer and the pusher. Again, the decisive fact is that the poseur-buyer received
the marijuana from the accused-appellant.
5. REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; WARRANTLESS ARREST; ACCUSED-
APPELLANT'S ARREST DOES NOT FALL UNDER ANY OF INSTANCES ENUMERATED IN
SECTION 5 OF RULE 113 OF THE 1985 RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. — To be lawful,
the warrantless arrest of appellant Gaddao must fall under any of the three (3) instances
enumerated in Section 5 of Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as
aforequoted. Accused-appellant Gaddao was not caught red-handed during the buy-bust
operation to give ground for her arrest under Section 5 (a) of Rule 113. She was not
committing any crime. Contrary to the finding of the trial court, there was no occasion at all
for appellant Gaddao to ee from the policemen to justify her arrest in "hot pursuit." In fact,
she was going about her daily chores when the policemen pounced on her. Neither could
the arrest of appellant Gaddao be justi ed under the second instance of Rule 113.
"Personal knowledge" of facts in arrests without warrant under Section 5 (b) of Rule 113
must be based upon "probable cause" which means an "actual belief or reasonable
grounds of suspicion." The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when, in the absence of
actual belief of the arresting o cers, the suspicion that the person to be arrested is
probably guilty of committing the offense, is based on actual facts, i.e., supported by
circumstances su ciently strong in themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of
the person to be arrested. A reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded on probable
cause, coupled with good faith on the part of the peace officers making the arrest.
6. ID.; ID.; WARRANTLESS SEIZURE; "PLAN VIEW" DOCTRINE; NOT APPLICABLE
IN CASE AT BAR. — In his direct examination, PO3 Manlangit said that he was sure that the
contents of the box were marijuana because he himself checked and marked the said
contents. On cross-examination, however, he admitted that he merely presumed the
contents to be marijuana because it had the same plastic wrapping as the "buy-bust
marijuana." A close scrutiny of the records reveals that the plastic wrapper was not
colorless and transparent as to clearly manifest its contents to a viewer. Each of the ten
(10) bricks of marijuana in the box was individually wrapped in old newspaper and placed
inside plastic bags — white, pink or blue in color. PO3 Manlangit himself admitted on
cross-examination that the contents of the box could be items other than marijuana. He
did not know exactly what the box contained that he had to ask appellant Gaddao about its
contents. It was not immediately apparent to PO3 Manlangit that the content of the box
was marijuana. The marijuana was not in plain view and its seizure without the requisite
search warrant was in violation of the law and the Constitution. It was fruit of the
poisonous tree and should have been excluded and never considered by the trial court.
PANGANIBAN, J ., concurring opinion:
1. REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; VALID ARRESTS WITHOUT
WARRANTS; "IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO" ARREST; IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT THAT THE
SUSPECT EXHIBITS UNUSUAL OR STRANGE ACTS OR SIMPLY APPEARS SUSPICIOUS;
THE BEHAVIOR OR CONDUCT OF THE PERSON TO BE ARRESTED MUST BE CLEARLY
INDICATIVE OF A CRIMINAL ACT. — Section 5(a) of Rule 113 is commonly referred to as
the rule on in flagrante delicto arrests. The accused is apprehended at the very moment he
is committing or attempting to commit or has just committed an offense in the presence
of the arresting o cer. There are two elements that must concur: (1) the person to be
arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the
presence or within the view of the arresting o cer. It is not su cient that the suspect
exhibits unusual or strange acts or simply appears suspicious. Thus, in the recent en banc
case of Malacat vs. Court of Appeals, the Court, through now Chief Justice Hilario G.
Davide, Jr., held that the fact that the appellant's eyes were "moving very fast" and looking
at every approaching person were not su cient to suspect him of "attempting to commit
a crime," much less to justify his arrest and subsequent search without a warrant. The
Court said that "there was nothing in [Malacat's] behavior or conduct which could have
reasonably elicited even mere suspicion" that he was armed with a deadly weapon. In other
words, there was no overt physical act on the part of the suspect, positively indicating that
he had just committed a crime or was committing or attempting to commit one. There
was, therefore, no valid reason for the police o cers to arrest or search him. The same
was true in People v. Mengote, where the arresting police tried to justify the warrantless
arrest of the appellant on the ground that he appeared suspicious. The "suspicious" acts
consisted of his darting eyes and the fact that his hand was over his abdomen. The Court,
rejecting such justi cation, stated: "By no stretch of the imagination could it have been
inferred from these acts that an offense had just been committed, or was actually being
committed, or was at least being attempted in their presence." In other words, the behavior
or conduct of the person to be arrested must be clearly indicative of a criminal act. If there
is no outward indication at all that calls for an arrest, the suspect cannot be validly
apprehended under this paragraph, notwithstanding a tip from an informant that he would
at the time be undertaking a felonious enterprise.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; "HOT PURSUIT" ARRESTS; ELEMENTS; PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE
OF FACTS INDICATING THAT THE PERSON TO BE ARRESTED HAS COMMITTED AN
OFFENSE; WHILE THE LAW ENFORCERS MAY NOT ACTUALLY WITNESS THE ACTS
CONSTITUTING THE OFFENSE, THEY MUST HAVE DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OR VIEW OF THE
CRIME RIGHT AFTER ITS COMMISSION; THEY MUST ALSO PERCEIVED ACTS EXHIBITED
BY THE PERSON TO BE ARRESTED, INDICATING THAT HE PERPETRATED THE CRIME. —
Section 5 (b) of Rule 113 is otherwise known as the rule on "hot pursuit" arrests. Here, two
elements must also concur prior to the arrest: (1) an "offense has in fact just been
committed," and (2) the arresting o cer "has personal knowledge of facts indicating that
the person to be arrested . . . committed [the offense]." In effecting this type of arrest, "it is
not enough that there is reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has
committed a crime. A crime must in fact or actually have been committed rst. . . . The fact
of the commission of the offense must be undisputed." Thus, while the law enforcers may
not actually witness the execution of acts constituting the offense, they must have direct
knowledge or view of the crime right after its commission. They should know for a fact
that a crime was committed. AND they must also perceive acts exhibits by the person to
be arrested, indicating that he perpetrated the crime. Again, mere intelligence information
that the suspect committed the crime will not su ce. The arresting o cers themselves
must have personal knowledge of facts showing that the suspect performed the criminal
act. Personal knowledge means actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion, based
on actual facts, that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the crime.
CHcETA
3. ID.; ID.; WARRANTLESS ARRESTS, SEARCHES AND SEIZURES; THE

EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE ON THE NECESSITY OF A JUDICIAL WARRANT FOR
ANY ARREST, SEARCH AND SEIZURE MUST ALL BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED. — I must
reiterate that the above exceptions to the general rule on the necessity of a judicial warrant
for any arrest, search and seizure must all be strictly construed. Foremost in our minds
must still be every person's prized and fundamental right to liberty and security, a right
protected and guaranteed by our Constitution.

DECISION
PUNO , J : p
On December 7, 1995, accused-appellants Florencio Doria y Bolado and Violeta

Gaddao y Catama @ "Neneth" were charged with violation of Section 4, in relation to
Section 21 of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. 1 The information reads:
"That on or about the 5th day of December, 1995 in the City of
Mandaluyong, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping and
aiding one another and without having been authorized by law, did, then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, administer, deliver and give away to
another eleven (11) plastic bags of suspected marijuana fruiting tops weighing
7,641.08 grams in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW." 2
The prosecution contends the offense was committed as follows: In November

1995, members of the North Metropolitan District, Philippine National Police (PNP)
Narcotics Command (Narcom), received information from two (2) civilian informants (CI)
that one "Jun" was engaged in illegal drug activities in Mandaluyong City. The Narcom
agents decided to entrap and arrest "Jun" in a buy-bust operation. As arranged by one of
the CI's, a meeting between the Narcom agents and "Jun" was scheduled on December 5,
1995 at E. Jacinto Street in Mandaluyong City.
On December 5, 1995, at 6:00 in the morning, the CI went to the PNP Headquarters
at EDSA, Kamuning, Quezon City to prepare for the buy-bust operation. The Narcom agents
formed Team Alpha composed of P/Insp. Nolasco Cortes as team leader and PO3 Celso
Manlangit, SPO1 Edmund Badua and four (4) other policemen as members. P/Insp. Cortes
designated PO3 Manlangit as the poseur-buyer and SPO1 Badua as his back-up, and the
rest of the team as perimeter security. Superintendent Pedro Alcantara, Chief of the North
Metropolitan District PNP Narcom, gave the team P2,000.00 to cover operational
expenses. From this sum, PO3 Manlangit set aside P1,600.00 — a one thousand peso bill
and six (6) one hundred peso bills 3 — as money for the buy-bust operation. The market
price of one kilo of marijuana was then P1,600.00. PO3 Manlangit marked the bills with his
initials and listed their serial numbers in the police blotter. 4 The team rode in two cars and
headed for the target area. prLL
At 7:20 of the same morning, "Jun" appeared and the CI introduced PO3 Manlangit
as interested in buying one (1) kilo of marijuana. PO3 Manlangit handed "Jun" the marked
bills worth P1,600.00. "Jun" instructed PO3 Manlangit to wait for him at the corner of Shaw
Boulevard and Jacinto Street while he got the marijuana from his associate. 5 An hour later,
"Jun" appeared at the agreed place where PO3 Manlangit, the CI and the rest of the team
were waiting. "Jun" took out from his bag an object wrapped in plastic and gave it to PO3
Manlangit. PO3 Manlangit forthwith arrested "Jun" as SPO1 Badua rushed to help in the
arrest. They frisked "Jun" but did not nd the marked bills on him. Upon inquiry, "Jun"
revealed that he left the money at the house of his associate named "Neneth." 6 "Jun" led
the police team to "Neneth's" house nearby at Daang Bakal.
The team found the door of "Neneth's" house open and at woman inside. "Jun"
identi ed the woman as his associate. 7 SPO1 Badua asked "Neneth" about the P1,600.00
as PO3 Manlangit looked over "Neneth's" house. Standing by the door, PO3 Manlangit
noticed a carton box under the dining table. He saw that one of the box's aps was open
and inside the box was something wrapped in plastic. The plastic wrapper and its contents
appeared similar to the marijuana earlier "sold" to him by "Jun." His suspicion aroused, PO3
Manlangit entered "Neneth's" house and took hold of the box. He peeked inside the box
and found that it contained ten (10) bricks of what appeared to be dried marijuana leaves.
Simultaneous with the box's discovery, SPO1 Badua recovered the marked bills from
"Neneth." 8 The policemen arrested "Neneth." They took "Neneth" and "Jun," together with
the box, its contents and the marked bills and turned them over to the investigator at
headquarters. It was only then that the police learned that "Jun" is Florencio Doria y Bolado
while "Neneth" is Violeta Gaddao y Catama. The one (1) brick of dried marijuana leaves
recovered from "Jun" plus the ten (10) bricks recovered from "Neneth's" house were
examined at the PNP Crime Laboratory. 9 The bricks, eleven (11) in all, were found to be
dried marijuana fruiting tops of various weights totalling 7,641.08 grams. 1 0
The prosecution story was denied by accused-appellants Florencio Doria and
Violeta Gaddao. Florencio Doria, a 33-year old carpenter, testi ed that on December 5,
1995, at 7:00 in the morning, he was at the gate of his house reading a tabloid newspaper.
Two men appeared and asked him if he knew a certain "Totoy." There were many "Totoys"
in their area and as the men questioning him were strangers, accused-appellant denied
knowing any "Totoy." The men took accused-appellant inside his house and accused him of
being a pusher in their community. When accused-appellant denied the charge, the men led
him to their car outside and ordered him to point out the house of "Totoy." For ve (5)
minutes, accused-appellant stayed in the car. Thereafter, he gave in and took them to
"Totoy's" house. LibLex
Doria knocked on the door of "Totoy's" house but no one answered. One of the men,
later identi ed as PO3 Manlangit, pushed open the door and he and his companions
entered and looked around the house for about three minutes. Accused-appellant Doria
was left standing at the door. The policemen came out of the house and they saw Violeta
Gaddao carrying water from the well. He asked Violeta where "Totoy" was but she replied
he was not there. Curious onlookers and kibitzers were, by that time, surrounding them.
When Violeta entered her house, three men were already inside. Accused-appellant Doria,
then still at the door, overheard one of the men say that they found a carton box. Turning
towards them, Doria saw a box on top of the table. The box was open and had something
inside. PO3 Manlangit ordered him and Violeta to go outside the house and board the car.
They were brought to police headquarters where they were investigated.
Accused-appellant Doria further declared that his co-accused, Violeta Gaddao, is the
wife of his acquaintance, Totoy Gaddao. He said that he and Totoy Gaddao sometimes
drank together at the neighborhood store. This closeness, however, did not extend to
Violeta, Totoy's wife. 1 1
Accused-appellant Violeta Gaddao, a 35-year old rice vendor, claimed that on
December 5, 1995, she was at her house at Daang Bakal, Mandaluyong City where she lived
with her husband and ve (5) children, namely, Arvy, aged 10, Arjay, aged 8, the twins
Raymond and Raynan, aged 5, and Jason, aged 3. That day, accused-appellant woke up at
5:30 in the morning and bought pan de sal for her children's breakfast. Her husband, Totoy,
a housepainter, had left for Pangasinan ve days earlier. She woke her children and bathed
them. Her eldest son, Arvy, left for school at 6:45 A.M. Ten minutes later, she carried her
youngest son, Jayson, and accompanied Arjay to school. She left the twins at home leaving
the door open. After seeing Arjay off, she and Jayson remained standing in front of the
school soaking in the sun for about thirty minutes. Then they headed for home. Along the
way, they passed the artesian well to fetch water. She was pumping water when a man
clad in short pants and denim jacket suddenly appeared and grabbed her left wrist. The
man pulled her and took her to her house. She found out later that the man was PO3
Manlangit.
Inside her house were her co-accused Doria and three (3) other persons. They asked
her about a box on top of the table. This was the rst time she saw the box. The box was
closed and tied with a piece of green straw. The men opened the box and showed her its
contents. She said she did not know anything about the box and its contents. cdll
Accused-appellant Violeta Gaddao con rmed that her co-accused Florencio Doria
was a friend of her husband, and that her husband never returned to their house after he
left for Pangasinan. She denied the charge against her and Doria and the allegation that
marked bills were found in her person. 1 2
After trial, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 156, Pasig City convicted the accused-
appellants. The trial court found the existence of an "organized/syndicated crime group"
and sentenced both accused-appellants to death and pay a ne of P500,000.00 each. The
dispositive portion of the decision reads as follows:
"WHEREFORE, the guilt of accused, FLORENCIO DORIA y BOLADO @ "Jun"
and VIOLETA GADDAO y CATAMA @ "Neneth" having been established beyond
reasonable doubt, they are both CONVICTED of the present charge against them.
According to the amendatory provisions of Sec. 13 of Republic Act No.

7659 which cover violations of Sec. 4 of Republic Act No. 6425 and which was
exhaustively discussed in People v. Simon , 234 SCRA 555, the penalty imposable
in this case is reclusion perpetua to death and a ne ranging from ve hundred
thousand pesos to ten million pesos. Taking into consideration, however, the
provisions of Sec. 23, also of Republic Act No. 7659 which explicitly state that:
'The maximum penalty shall be imposed if the offense was
committed by any person who belongs to an organized/syndicated crime
group.
An organized/syndicated crime group means a group of two or
more persons collaborating, confederating or mutually helping one another
for purposes of gain in the commission of any crime.'
the Court is hereby constrained to sentence (hereby sentences) said FLORENCIO
DORIA y BOLADO @ "Jun" and VIOLETA GADDAO y CATAMA @ "Neneth" to
DEATH and to pay a ne of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) each
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs. cda
The con scated marijuana bricks (7,641.08 grams) shall be turned over to
the Dangerous Drugs Board, NBI for destruction in accordance with law.
Let a Commitment Order be issued for the transfer of accused DORIA from
the Mandaluyong City Jail to the New Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa City and also
for accused GADDAO for her transfer to the Correctional Institute for Women,
Mandaluyong City.
Let the entire records of this case be forwarded immediately to the
Supreme Court for mandatory review.
SO ORDERED." 1 3
Before this Court, accused-appellant Doria assigns two errors, thus:

"I
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT TO THE TESTIMONY OF
THE WITNESSES FOR THE PROSECUTION WHEN THEIR TESTIMONIES WERE
SHOT WITH DISCREPANCIES, INCONSISTENCIES AND THAT THE CORPUS
DELICTI OF THE MARIJUANA ALLEGEDLY TAKEN FROM APPELLANT WAS NOT
POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED BY THE POSEUR-BUYER.
II
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN ADMITTING AS EVIDENCE THE
MARIJUANA FRUITINGS FOUND INSIDE THE CARTON BOX AS THESE WERE
OBTAINED THROUGH A WARRANTLESS SEARCH AND DOES NOT COME WITHIN
THE PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE." 1 4
Accused-appellant Violeta Gaddao contends:

"I
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING APPELLANT GUILTY DESPITE THE
INCREDIBILITY OF THE POLICE VERSION OF THE MANNER THE ALLEGED BUY-
BUST WAS CONDUCTED.
II
THE PNP OFFICERS' VERSIONS AS TO WHERE THE BUY-BUST MONEY CAME
FROM ARE INCONSISTENT WITH ONE ANOTHER AND ALSO REEKS WITH
INCREDIBILITY.
III
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING APPELLANT GUILTY AND SENTENCING
HER TO DEATH DESPITE THE MANIFESTLY IRRECONCILABLE
INCONSISTENCIES IN THE VERSIONS OF THE POLICE AS TO HOW AND BY
WHOM THE ALLEGED BUY-BUST MONEY WAS RECOVERED FROM HER, WHICH
IN CONSEQUENCE RESULTS IN THE EVIDENCE, OF RETRIEVAL FROM HER OF
THE SAME, NEBULOUS, AT BEST, NIL, AT WORST.
IV
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF THE
WARRANTLESS SEARCH LEADING TO THE SEIZURE OF THE MARIJUANA
ALLEGEDLY FOUND INSIDE THE HOUSE OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT." 1 5 cdasia
The assigned errors involve two principal issues: (1) the validity of the buy-bust
operation in the apprehension of accused-appellant Doria; and (2) the validity of the
warrantless arrest of accused-appellant Gaddao, the search of her person and house, and
the admissibility of the pieces of evidence obtained therefrom.
Accused-appellants were caught by the police in a buy-bust operation. A buy-bust
operation is a form of entrapment employed by peace o cers as an effective way of
apprehending a criminal in the act of the commission of an offense. 1 6 Entrapment has
received judicial sanction when undertaken with due regard to constitutional and legal
safeguards. 1 7
Entrapment was unknown in common law. It is a judicially created twentieth-century
American doctrine that evolved from the increasing use of informers and undercover
agents in the detection of crimes, particularly liquor and narcotics offenses. 1 8 Entrapment
sprouted from the doctrine of estoppel and the public interest in the formulation and
application of decent standards in the enforcement of criminal law. 1 9 It also took off from
a spontaneous moral revulsion against using the powers of government to beguile
innocent but ductile persons into lapses that they might otherwise resist. 2 0
In the American jurisdiction, the term "entrapment" has a generally negative meaning
because it is understood as the inducement of one to commit a crime not contemplated
by him, for the mere purpose of instituting a criminal prosecution against him. 2 1 The
classic de nition of entrapment is that articulated by Justice Roberts in Sorrells v. United
States, 2 2 the rst Supreme Court decision to acknowledge the concept: "Entrapment is
the conception and planning of an offense by an o cer, and his procurement of its
commission by one who would not have perpetrated it except for the trickery, persuasion
or fraud of the o cer." 2 3 It consists of two (2) elements: (a) acts of persuasion, trickery,
or fraud carried out by law enforcement o cers or the agents to induce a defendant to
commit a crime; and (b) the origin of the criminal design in the minds of the government
o cials rather than that of the innocent defendant, such that the crime is the product of
the creative activity of the law enforcement officer. 2 4cdtai
It is recognized that in every arrest, there is a certain amount of entrapment used to

outwit the persons violating or about to violate the law. Not every deception is forbidden.
The type of entrapment the law forbids is the inducing of another to violate the law, the
"seduction" of an otherwise innocent person into a criminal career. 2 5 Where the criminal
intent originates in the mind of the entrapping person and the accused is lured into the
commission of the offense charged in order to prosecute him, there is entrapment and no
conviction may be had. 2 6 Where, however, the criminal intent originates in the mind of the
accused and the criminal offense is completed, the fact that a person acting as a decoy for
the state, or public o cials furnished the accused an opportunity for commission of the
offense, or that the accused is aided in the commission of the crime in order to secure the
evidence necessary to prosecute him, there is no entrapment and the accused must be
convicted. 2 7 The law tolerates the use of decoys and other artifices to catch a criminal.
Entrapment is recognized as a valid defense 2 8 that can be raised by an accused and
partakes of the nature of a confession and avoidance. 2 9 It is a positive defense. Initially, an
accused has the burden of providing su cient evidence that the government induced him
to commit the offense. Once established, the burden shifts to the government to show
otherwise. 3 0 When entrapment is raised as a defense, American federal courts and a
majority of state courts use the "subjective" or "origin of intent" test laid down in Sorrells v.
United States 3 1 to determine whether entrapment actually occurred. The focus of the
inquiry is on the accused's predisposition to commit the offense charged, his state of
mind and inclination before his initial exposure to government agents. 3 2 All relevant facts
such as the accused's mental and character traits, his past offenses, activities, his
eagerness in committing the crime, his reputation, etc., are considered to assess his state
of mind before the crime. 3 3 The predisposition test emphasizes the accused's propensity
to commit the offense rather than the o cer's misconduct 3 4 and re ects an attempt to
draw a line between a "trap for the unwary innocent and the trap for the unwary criminal." 3 5
If the accused was found to have been ready and willing to commit the offense at any
favorable opportunity, the entrapment defense will fail even if a police agent used an
unduly persuasive inducement. 3 6 Some states, however, have adopted the "objective" test.
3 7 This test was rst authoritatively laid down in the case of Grossman v. State 3 8 rendered
by the Supreme Court of Alaska. Several other states have subsequently adopted the test
by judicial pronouncement or legislation. Here, the court considers the nature of the police
activity involved and the propriety of police conduct. 3 9 The inquiry is focused on the
inducements used by government agents, on police conduct, not on the accused and his
predisposition to commit the crime. For the goal of the defense is to deter unlawful police
conduct. 4 0 The test of entrapment is whether the conduct of the law enforcement agent
was likely to induce a normally law-abiding person, other than one who is ready and willing,
to commit the offense; 4 1 for purposes of this test, it is presumed that a law-abiding
person would normally resist the temptation to commit a crime that is presented by the
simple opportunity to act unlawfully. 4 2 O cial conduct that merely offers such an
opportunity is permissible, but overbearing conduct, such as badgering, cajoling or
importuning, 4 3 or appeals to sentiments such as pity, sympathy, friendship or pleas of
desperate illness, are not. 4 4 Proponents of this test believe that courts must refuse to
convict an entrapped accused not because his conduct falls outside the legal norm but
rather because, even if his guilt has been established, the methods employed on behalf of
the government to bring about the crime "cannot be countenanced." To some extent, this
re ects the notion that the courts should not become tainted by condoning law
enforcement improprieties. 4 5 Hence, the transactions leading up to the offense, the
interaction between the accused and law enforcement o cer and the accused's response
to the o cer's inducements, the gravity of the crime, and the di culty of detecting
instances of its commission are considered in judging what the effect of the o cer's
conduct would be on a normal person. 4 6 cdrep
Both the "subjective" and "objective" approaches have been criticized and objected
to. It is claimed that the "subjective" test creates an "anything goes" rule, i.e., if the court
determines that an accused was predisposed to commit the crime charged, no level of
police deceit, badgering or other unsavory practices will be deemed impermissible. 4 7
Delving into the accused's character and predisposition obscures the more important task
of judging police behavior and prejudices the accused more generally. It ignores the
possibility that no matter what his past crimes and general disposition were, the accused
might not have committed the particular crime unless confronted with inordinate
inducements. 4 8 On the other extreme, the purely "objective" test eliminates entirely the
need for considering a particular accused's predisposition. His predisposition, at least if
known by the police, may have an important bearing upon the question of whether the
conduct of the police and their agents was proper. 4 9 The undisputed fact that the accused
was a dangerous and chronic offender or that he was a shrewd and active member of a
criminal syndicate at the time of his arrest is relegated to irrelevancy. 5 0
Objections to the two tests gave birth to hybrid approaches to entrapment. Some
states in the United States now combine both the "subjective" and "objective" tests. 5 1 In
Cruz v. State, 5 2 the Florida Supreme Court declared that the permissibility of police
conduct must rst be determined. If this objective test is satis ed, then the analysis turns
to whether the accused was predisposed to commit the crime. 5 3 In Baca v. State, 5 4 the
New Mexico Supreme Court modi ed the state's entrapment analysis by holding that "a
criminal defendant may successfully assert a defense of entrapment, either by showing
lack of predisposition to commit the crime for which he is charged, or, that the police
exceeded the standards of proper investigation. 5 5 The hybrid approaches combine and
apply the "objective" and "subjective" tests alternatively or concurrently.
As early as 1910, this Court has examined the conduct of law enforcers while
apprehending the accused caught in agrante delicto. In United States v. Phelps, 5 6 we
acquitted the accused from the offense of smoking opium after nding that the
government employee, a BIR personnel, actually induced him to commit the crime in order
to prosecute him. Smith, the BIR agent, testi ed that Phelps' apprehension came after he
overheard Phelps in a saloon say that he liked smoking opium on some occasions. Smith's
testimony was disregarded. We accorded signi cance to the fact that it was Smith who
went to the accused three times to convince him to look for an opium den where both of
them could smoke this drug. 5 7 The conduct of the BIR agent was condemned as "most
reprehensible." 5 8 In People v. Abella, 5 9 we acquitted the accused of the crime of selling
explosives after examining the testimony of the apprehending police o cer who
pretended to be a merchant. The police o cer offered "a tempting price, . . . a very high
one" causing the accused to sell the explosives. We found that there was inducement,
"direct, persistent and effective" by the police o cer and that outside of his testimony,
there was no evidence su cient to convict the accused. 6 0 In People v. Lua Chu and Uy Se
Tieng, 6 1 we convicted the accused after nding that there was no inducement on the part
of the law enforcement o cer. We stated that the Customs secret serviceman smoothed
the way for the introduction of opium from Hongkong to Cebu after the accused had
already planned its importation and ordered said drug. We ruled that the apprehending
o cer did not induce the accused to import opium but merely entrapped him by
pretending to have an understanding with the Collector of Customs of Cebu to better
assure the seizure of the prohibited drug and the arrest of the surreptitious importers. 6 2
It was also in the same case of People v. Lua Chu and Uy Se Tieng 6 3 we rst laid
down the distinction between entrapment vis-a-vis instigation or inducement. Quoting 16
Corpus Juris, 6 4 we held: prcd
"ENTRAPMENT AND INSTIGATION. — While it has been said that the

practice of entrapping persons into crime for the purpose of instituting criminal
prosecutions is to be deplored, and while instigation, as distinguished from mere
entrapment, has often been condemned and has sometimes been held to prevent
the act from being criminal or punishable, the general rule is that it is no defense
to the perpetrator of a crime that facilities for its commission were purposely
placed in his way, or that the criminal act was done at the 'decoy solicitation' of
persons seeking to expose the criminal, or that detectives feigning complicity in
the act were present and apparently assisting in its commission. Especially is this
true in that class of cases where the offense is one of a kind habitually
committed, and the solicitation merely furnishes evidence of a course of conduct.
Mere deception by the detective will not shield defendant, if the offense was
committed by him, free from the in uence or instigation of the detective. The fact
that an agent of an owner acts as a supposed confederate of a thief is no
defense to the latter in a prosecution for larceny, provided the original design was
formed independently of such agent; and where a person approached by the thief
as his confederate noti es the owner or the public authorities, and, being
authorized by them to do so, assists the thief in carrying out the plan, the larceny
is nevertheless committed. It is generally held that it is no defense to a
prosecution for an illegal sale of liquor that the purchase was made by a 'spotter,'
detective, or hired informer; but there are cases holding the contrary." 6 5
The distinction above-quoted was reiterated in two (2) decisions of the Court of
Appeals. In People v. Galicia, 6 6 the appellate court declared that "there is a wide
difference between entrapment and instigation." The instigator practically induces the
would-be accused into the commission of the offense and himself becomes a co-
principal. In entrapment, ways and means are resorted to by the peace o cer for the
purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreaker in the execution of his criminal plan.
67In People v. Tan Tiong , 6 8 the Court of Appeals further declared that "entrapment is
no bar to the prosecution and conviction of the lawbreaker." 6 9
The pronouncement of the Court of Appeals in People v. Galicia was a rmed by this
Court in People v. Tiu Ua. 7 0 Entrapment, we further held, is not contrary to public policy. It
is instigation that is deemed contrary to public policy and illegal. 7 1
It can thus be seen that the concept of entrapment in the American jurisdiction is
similar to instigation or inducement in Philippine jurisprudence. Entrapment in the
Philippines is not a defense available to the accused. It is instigation that is a defense and
is considered an absolutory cause. 7 2 To determine whether there is entrapment or
instigation, our courts have mainly examined the conduct of the apprehending o cers, not
the predisposition of the accused to commit the crime. The "objective" test rst applied in
United States v. Phelps has been followed in a series of similar cases. 7 3 Nevertheless,
adopting the "objective" approach has not precluded us from likewise applying the
"subjective" test. In People v. Boholst, 7 4 we applied both tests by examining the conduct
of the police o cers in a buy-bust operation and admitting evidence of the accused's
membership with the notorious and dreaded Sigue-Sigue Sputnik Gang. We also
considered accused's previous convictions of other crimes 7 5 and held that his
opprobrious past and membership with the dreaded gang strengthened the state's
evidence against him. Conversely, the evidence that the accused did not sell or smoke
marijuana and did not have any criminal record was likewise admitted in People v. Yutuc 7 6
thereby sustaining his defense that led to his acquittal. llcd
The distinction between entrapment and instigation has proven to be very material
in anti-narcotics operations. In recent years, it has become common practice for law
enforcement o cers and agents to engage in buy-bust operations and other entrapment
procedures in apprehending drug offenders. Anti-narcotics laws, like anti-gambling laws
are regulatory statutes. 7 7 They are rules of convenience designed to secure a more orderly
regulation of the affairs of society, and their violation gives rise to crimes mala prohibita.
7 8 They are not the traditional type of criminal law such as the law of murder, rape, theft,
arson, etc. that deal with crimes mala in se or those inherently wrongful and immoral. 7 9
Laws de ning crimes mala prohibita condemn behavior directed, not against particular
individuals, but against public order. 8 0 Violation is deemed a wrong against society as a
whole and is generally unattended with any particular harm to a de nite person. 8 1 These
offenses are carried on in secret and the violators resort to many devices and subterfuges
to avoid detection. It is rare for any member of the public, no matter how furiously he
condemns acts mala prohibita, to be willing to assist in the enforcement of the law. It is
necessary, therefore, that government in detecting and punishing violations of these laws,
rely, not upon the voluntary action of aggrieved individuals, but upon the diligence of its
own o cials. This means that the police must be present at the time the offenses are
committed either in an undercover capacity or through informants, spies or stool pigeons.
82
Though considered essential by the police in enforcing vice legislation, the

con dential informant system breeds abominable abuse. Frequently, a person who
accepts payment from the police in the apprehension of drug peddlers and gamblers also
accept payment from these persons who deceive the police. The informant himself may be
a drug addict, pickpocket, pimp, or other petty criminal. For whatever noble purpose it
serves, the spectacle that government is secretly mated with the underworld and uses
underworld characters to help maintain law and order is not an inspiring one. 8 3 Equally
odious is the bitter reality of dealing with unscrupulous, corrupt and exploitative law
enforcers. Like the informant, unscrupulous law enforcers' motivations are legion —
harassment, extortion, vengeance, blackmail, or a desire to report an accomplishment to
their superiors. This Court has taken judicial notice of this ugly reality in a number of cases
8 4 where we observed that it is a common modus operandi of corrupt law enforcers to
prey on weak and hapless persons, particularly unsuspecting provincial hicks. 8 5 The use of
shady underworld characters as informants, the relative ease with which illegal drugs may
be planted in the hands or property of trusting and ignorant persons, and the imposed
secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals have compelled this Court to be extra-vigilant
in deciding drug cases. 8 6 Criminal activity is such that stealth and strategy, although
necessary weapons in the arsenal of the police o cer, become as objectionable police
methods as the coerced confession and the unlawful search. As well put by the Supreme
Court of California in People v. Barraza, 8 7
"[E]ntrapment is a facet of a broader problem. Along with illegal search and
seizures, wiretapping, false arrest, illegal detention and the third degree, it is a type
of lawless enforcement. They all spring from common motivations. Each is a
substitute for skillful and scienti c investigation. Each is condoned by the sinister
sophism that the end, when dealing with known criminals of the 'criminal classes,'
justifies the employment of illegal means." 8 8 cdpr
It is thus imperative that the presumption, juris tantum, of regularity in the performance
of o cial duty by law enforcement agents raised by the Solicitor General be applied
with studied restraint. This presumption should not by itself prevail over the
presumption of innocence and the constitutionally-protected rights of the individual. 8 9
It is the duty of courts to preserve the purity of their own temple from the prostitution
of the criminal law through lawless enforcement. 9 0 Courts should not allow themselves
to be used as an instrument of abuse and injustice lest an innocent person be made to
suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses. 9 1
We therefore stress that the "objective" test in buy-bust operations demands that
the details of the purported transaction must be clearly and adequately shown. This must
start from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to
purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration until the consummation of the sale
by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale. 9 2 The manner by which the initial
contact was made, whether or not through an informant, the offer to purchase the drug, the
payment of the "buy-bust" money, and the delivery of the illegal drug, whether to the
informant alone or the police o cer, must be the subject of strict scrutiny by courts to
insure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense. Criminals
must be caught but not at all cost. At the same time, however, examining the conduct of
the police should not disable courts into ignoring the accused's predisposition to commit
the crime. If there is overwhelming evidence of habitual delinquency, recidivism or plain
criminal proclivity, then this must also be considered. Courts should look at all factors to
determine the predisposition of an accused to commit an offense in so far as they are
relevant to determine the validity of the defense of inducement.
In the case at bar, the evidence shows that it was the con dential informant who
initially contacted accused-appellant Doria. At the pre-arranged meeting, the informant
was accompanied by PO3 Manlangit who posed as the buyer of marijuana. PO3 Manlangit
handed the marked money to accused-appellant Doria as advance payment for one (1) kilo
of marijuana. Accused-appellant Doria was apprehended when he later returned and
handed the brick of marijuana to PO3 Manlangit.
PO3 Manlangit testi ed in a frank, spontaneous, straightforward and categorical
manner and his credibility was not crumpled on cross-examination by defense counsel.
Moreover, PO3 Manlangit's testimony was corroborated on its material points by SPO1
Badua, his back-up security. The non-presentation of the con dential informant is not fatal
to the prosecution. Informants are usually not presented in court because of the need to
hide their identity and preserve their invaluable service to the police. 9 3 It is well-settled
that except when the appellant vehemently denies selling prohibited drugs and there are
material inconsistencies in the testimonies of the arresting o cers, 9 4 or there are
reasons to believe that the arresting o cers had motives to testify falsely against the
appellant, 9 5 or that only the informant was the poseur-buyer who actually witnessed the
entire transaction, 9 6 the testimony of the informant may be dispensed with as it will
merely be corroborative of the apprehending o cers' eyewitness testimonies. 9 7 There is
no need to present the informant in court where the sale was actually witnessed and
adequately proved by prosecution witnesses. 9 8 LLphil
The inconsistencies in PO3 Manlangit's and SPO1 Badua's testimonies and the other
police o cers' testimonies are minor and do not detract from the veracity and weight of
the prosecution evidence. The source of the money for the buy-bust operation is not a
critical fact in the case at bar. It is enough that the prosecution proved that money was
paid to accused-appellant Doria in consideration of which he sold and delivered the
marijuana.
Contrary to accused-appellant Doria's claim, the one kilo of marijuana "sold" by him
to PO3 Manlangit was actually identi ed by PO3 Manlangit himself before the trial court.
After appellants' apprehension, the Narcom agents placed this one (1) brick of marijuana
recovered from appellant Doria inside the carton box lumping it together with the ten (10)
bricks inside. This is why the carton box contained eleven (11) bricks of marijuana when
brought before the trial court. The one (1) brick recovered from appellant Doria and each
of the ten (10) bricks, however, were identified and marked in court. Thus:
"ATTY. ARIAS, Counsel for Florencio Doria:
Mr. Police O cer, when you identi ed that box, Tell the court, how were
you able to identify that box?
A This is the box that I brought to the crime laboratory which
contained the eleven pieces of marijuana brick we con scated
from the suspect, sir .
Q Please open it and show those eleven bricks.
PROSECUTOR
Witness bringing out from the said box . . .

ATTY. VALDEZ, Counsel for Violeta Gaddao:
Your Honor, I must protest the line of questioning considering the fact that
we are now dealing with eleven items when the question posed to the
witness was what was handed to him by Jun?
COURT
So be it.
ATTY. ARIAS

May we make it of record that the witness is pulling out item after item from
the box showed to him and brought in front of him.
COURT
Noted.
Q Now tell the court, how did you know that those are the eleven
bricks?
xxx xxx xxx.

A I have markings on these eleven bricks, sir .
Q Point to the court, where are those markings?

A Here, sir, my signature, my initials with the date, sir.
PROSECUTOR
Witness showed a white wrapper and pointing to CLM and the signature.
Q Whose signature is that?
ATTY. VALDEZ
Your Honor, may we just limit the inquiry to the basic question of the scal
as to what was handed to him by the accused Jun, your Honor?
PROSECUTOR
Your Honor, there is already a ruling by this Honorable Court, your Honor,
despite reconsideration. LLjur
COURT
Let the prosecution do its own thing and leave the appreciation of what it
has done to the court.
ATTY. VALDEZ
We submit, your Honor.

A This brick is the one that was handed to me by the suspect Jun,
sir .
COURT
Why do you know that that is the thing? Are you sure that is not
"tikoy?"
A Yes, your Honor.

Q What makes you so sure?
A I am sure that this is the one, your Honor. This is the Exhibit "A"
which I marked before I brought it to the PCCL, your Honor.
Q What are you sure of ?
A I am sure that this is the brick that was given to me by one alias
Jun, sir.
Q What makes you so sure?
A Because I marked it with my own initials before giving it to the
investigator and before we brought it to the PCCL, your Honor.
xxx xxx xxx.

PROSECUTOR
May we request that a tag be placed on this white plastic bag and
this be marked as Exhibit "D?"
COURT
Mark it as Exhibit "D."
Q To stress, who made the entries of this date, Exhibit "A" then the other
letters and figures on this plastic?
A This one, the signature, I made the signature, the date and the time and this
Exhibit "A."
Q How about this one?

A I don't know who made this marking, sir.
PROSECUTOR
May it be of record that this was just entered this morning.

Q I am asking you about this "itim" and not the "asul."
A This CLM, the date and the time and the Exhibit "A," I was the one who
made these markings, sir.
PROSECUTOR
May we place on record that the one that was enclosed. . .

ATTY. ARIAS
Your Honor, there are also entries included in that enclosure where it appears
D-394-95, also Exhibit "A," etc. etc., that was not pointed to by the witness. I
want to make it of record that there are other entries included in the
enclosure. LexLib
COURT
Noted. The court saw it.

Q Now, and this alleged brick of marijuana with a piece of paper,
with a newspaper wrapping with a piece of paper inside which
reads: "D-394-95, Exhibit A, 970 grams SSL" be marked as our
Exhibit "D-2?"
COURT
Tag it. Mark it.
Q This particular exhibit that you identi ed, the wrapper and the
contents was given to you by whom?
A It was given to me by suspect Jun, sir.
Q Whereat?
A At the corner of Boulevard and Jacinto St., sir.
Q How about the other items that you were able to recover?
xxx xxx xxx.

A These other marijuana bricks, because during our follow-up,
because according to Jun the money which I gave him was in the
hands of Neneth and so we proceeded to the house of Neneth sir.
xxx xxx xxx." 9 9
The rst brick identi ed by PO3 Manlangit was the brick of marijuana "given to [him] by
suspect Jun" at the corner of Boulevard and Jacinto Streets. This brick, including the
newspaper and white plastic wrapping were marked as Exhibits "D," "D-1," and "D-2" and
described as weighing nine hundred seventy (970) grams. 1 0 0
We also reject appellant's submission that the fact that PO3 Manlangit and his team
waited for almost one hour for appellant Doria to give them the one kilo of marijuana after
he "paid" P1,600.00 strains credulity. Appellant cannot capitalize on the circumstance that
the money and the marijuana in the case at bar did not change hands under the usual
"kaliwaan" system. There is no rule of law which requires that in "buy-bust" operations there
must be a simultaneous exchange of the marked money and the prohibited drug between
the poseur-buyer and the pusher. 1 0 1 Again, the decisive fact is that the poseur-buyer
received the marijuana from the accused-appellant. 1 0 2
We also hold that the warrantless arrest of accused-appellant Doria is not unlawful.
Warrantless arrests are allowed in three instances as provided by Section 5 of Rule 113 of
the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, to wit: prLL
"Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace o cer or a

private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has

committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an
offense;
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he

has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be
arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who escaped from a
penal establishment or place where he is serving nal judgment or temporarily
con ned while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from
one confinement to another.
xxx xxx xxx." 1 0 3
Under Section 5 (a), as above-quoted, a person may be arrested without a warrant if he

"has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense."
Appellant Doria was caught in the act of committing an offense. When an accused is
apprehended in agrante delicto as a result of a buy-bust operation, the police are not
only authorized but duty-bound to arrest him even without a warrant. 1 0 4
The warrantless arrest of appellant Gaddao, the search of her person and residence,
and the seizure of the box of marijuana and marked bills are different matters.
Our Constitution proscribes search and seizure without a judicial warrant and any
evidence obtained without such warrant is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
1 0 5 The rule is, however, not absolute. Search and seizure may be made without a warrant
and the evidence obtained therefrom may be admissible in the following instances: 1 0 6 (1)
search incident to a lawful arrest; 1 0 7 (2) search of a moving motor vehicle; 1 0 8 (3) search
in violation of customs laws; 1 0 9 (4) seizure of evidence in plain view; 1 1 0 (5) when the
accused himself waives his right against unreasonable searches and seizures. 1 1 1
The prosecution admits that appellant Gaddao was arrested without a warrant of
arrest and the search and seizure of the box of marijuana and the marked bills were
likewise made without a search warrant. It is claimed, however, that the warrants were not
necessary because the arrest was made in "hot pursuit" and the search was an incident to
her lawful arrest. LibLex
To be lawful, the warrantless arrest of appellant Gaddao must fall under any of the
three (3) instances enumerated in Section 5 of Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal
Procedure as aforequoted. The direct testimony of PO3 Manlangit, the arresting o cer,
however shows otherwise:
"ATTY. VALDEZ, Counsel for appellant Gaddao:
We submit at this juncture, your Honor, that there will be no basis for that
question.
Q This particular exhibit that you identi ed, the wrapper and the contents was
given to you by whom?
A It was given to me by suspect Jun, sir.
Q Whereat?
A At the corner of Boulevard and Jacinto Street, sir.
Q How about the other items that you were able to recover?
ATTY. VALDEZ:
We submit at this juncture, your Honor, that there will be no basis for that
question.
COURT:
There is. Answer.
A These other marijuana bricks, because during our follow-up, because

according to Jun the money which I gave him was in the hands of
Neneth and so we proceeded to the house of Neneth, sir .
Q Whereat?
A At Daang Bakal near the crime scene at Shaw Boulevard, sir.

Q And what happened upon arrival thereat?
A We saw alias Neneth inside the house and we asked him to give
us the buy-bust money, sir.
Q You mentioned "him?"

A Her, sir. We asked her to give us the money, the marked money
which Jun gave her, sir .
Q And what happened?

A At this instance, it was SPO1 Badua who can testify regarding this buy-bust
money, sir. cdlex
xxx xxx xxx." 1 1 2
SPO1 Badua testified on cross-examination that:

Q What was your intention in going to the house of Aling Neneth?
A To arrest her, sir.
Q But the fact is, Mr. Witness, when you reached the house of Aling
Neneth, Aling Neneth was there?
A Yes, sir.
Q As far as you can see, she was just inside her house?
A I saw her outside, sir.
Q She was fetching water as a matter of fact?
A She was 'sa bandang poso.'

Q Carrying a baby?
A No, sir.
Q At that particular time when you reached the house of Aling
Neneth and saw her outside the house, she was not committing
any crime, she was just outside the house?
A No, sir.
Q She was not about to commit any crime because she was just
outside the house doing her daily chores. Am I correct?
A I just saw her outside, sir.

Q And at that point in time you already wanted to arrest her. That is
correct, is it not?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, if any memory of your testimony is correct, according to you SPO1
Manlangit approached her?
A PO3 Manlangit, sir.
Q You did not approach her because PO3 Manlangit approached her?
A Yes, sir.
Q During all the time that this confrontation, arrest or whatever by SPO3
Manlangit was taking place, you were just in the side lines?
A I was just watching, sir.

Q So you were just an on-looker to what Manlangit was doing, because
precisely according to you your role in this buy-bust operation was as a
back-up?
A Yes, sir.
Q Who got the alleged marijuana from inside the house of Mrs. Neneth?
A PO3 Manlangit, sir.
Q Manlangit got the marijuana?

A Yes, sir.
Q And the money from Aling Neneth?

A I don't know, sir.
Q You did not even know who got the money from Aling Neneth? cdll
PROSECUTOR:
There is no basis for this question, your Honor. Money, there's no
testimony on that.
ATTY. VALDEZ:
I was asking him precisely.
PROSECUTOR:
No basis.
COURT:
Sustained.
Q Alright. I will ask you a question and I expect an honest answer. According
to the records, the amount of P1,600.00 was recovered from the person of
Aling Neneth. That's right?
A Yes, sir, the buy-bust money.

Q What you are now saying for certain and for the record is the fact that you
were not the one who retrieved the money from Aling Neneth, it was
Manlangit maybe?
A I saw it, sir.

Q It was Manlangit who got the money from Aling Neneth?
A The buy-bust money was recovered from the house of Aling Neneth, sir.
Q It was taken from the house of Aling Neneth, not from the person of Aling
Neneth. Is that what you are trying to tell the Court?
A No, sir.
ATTY. VALDEZ:
I am through with this witness, your Honor." 113
Accused-appellant Gaddao was not caught red-handed during the buy-bust

operation to give ground for her arrest under Section 5 (a) of Rule 113. She was not
committing any crime. Contrary to the finding of the trial court, there was no occasion at all
for appellant Gaddao to ee from the policemen to justify her arrest in "hot pursuit." 1 1 4 In
fact, she was going about her daily chores when the policemen pounced on her.
Neither could the arrest of appellant Gaddao be justi ed under the second instance
of Rule 113. "Personal knowledge" of facts in arrests without warrant under Section 5 (b)
of Rule 113 must be based upon "probable cause" which means an "actual belief or
reasonable grounds of suspicion." 1 1 5 The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when, in
the absence of actual belief of the arresting o cers, the suspicion that the person to be
arrested is probably guilty of committing the offense, is based on actual facts, i.e.,
supported by circumstances su ciently strong in themselves to create the probable
cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. 1 1 6 A reasonable suspicion therefore must be
founded on probable cause, coupled with good faith on the part of the peace o cers
making the arrest. 1 1 7
Accused-appellant Gaddao was arrested solely on the basis of the alleged
identi cation made by her co-accused. PO3 Manlangit, however, declared in his direct
examination that appellant Doria named his co-accused in response to his (PO3
Manlangit's) query as to where the marked money was. 1 1 8 Appellant Doria did not point
to appellant Gaddao as his associate in the drug business, but as the person with whom he
left the marked bills. This identi cation does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that
appellant Gaddao conspired with her co-accused in pushing drugs. Appellant Doria may
have left the money in her house, 1 1 9 with or without her knowledge, with or without any
conspiracy. Save for accused-appellant Doria's word, the Narcom agents had no
reasonable grounds to believe that she was engaged in drug pushing. If there is no
showing that the person who effected the warrantless arrest had, in his own right,
knowledge of facts implicating the person arrested to the perpetration of a criminal
offense, the arrest is legally objectionable. 1 2 0
Since the warrantless arrest of accused-appellant Gaddao was illegal, it follows that
the search of her person and home and the subsequent seizure of the marked bills and
marijuana cannot be deemed legal as an incident to her arrest. This brings us to the
question of whether the trial court correctly found that the box of marijuana was in plain
view, making its warrantless seizure valid. cdasia
Objects falling in plain view of an o cer who has a right to be in the position to have
that view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant and may be introduced in
evidence. 1 2 1 The "plain view" doctrine applies when the following requisites concur: (a) the
law enforcement o cer in search of the evidence has a prior justi cation for an intrusion
or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of the
evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately apparent to the o cer that the
item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.
1 2 2 The law enforcement o cer must lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly be in a
position from which he can particularly view the area. 1 2 3 In the course of such lawful
intrusion, he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. 1 2 4
The object must be open to eye and hand 1 2 5 and its discovery inadvertent. 1 2 6

It is clear that an object is in plain view if the object itself is plainly exposed to sight.
The di culty arises when the object is inside a closed container. Where the object seized
was inside a closed package, the object itself is not in plain view and therefore cannot be
seized without a warrant. However, if the package proclaims its contents, whether by its
distinctive con guration, its transparency, or if its contents are obvious to an observer,
then the contents are in plain view and may be seized. 1 2 7 In other words, if the package is
such that an experienced observer could infer from its appearance that it contains the
prohibited article, then the article is deemed in plain view. 1 2 8 It must be immediately
apparent to the police that the items that they observe may be evidence of a crime,
contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. 1 2 9
PO3 Manlangit, the Narcom agent who found the box, testified on cross-examination
as follows:
"ATTY. VALDEZ:
So here we are. When you and Badua arrived, Aling Neneth was inside the
house?
A Yes, sir.
Q Badua demanded from Aling Neneth the buy-bust money?
A Yes, sir.
Q At that particular instance, you saw the carton?

A Yes, sir.
Q This carton, according to you was under a table?
A Yes, sir, dining table.
Q I noticed that this carton has a cover?

A Yes, sir.
Q I ask you were the flaps of the cover raised or closed?
A It was open, sir. Not like that.

COURT
Go down there. Show to the court. cda
INTERPRETER
Witness went down the witness stand and approached a carton box.
A Like this, sir.
PROSECUTOR
Can we describe it?
ATTY. VALDEZ
Yes.
PROSECUTOR
One ap is inside and the other ap is standing and with the
contents visible.
COURT
Noted.
Q At this juncture, you went inside the house?
A Yes, sir.
Q And got hold of this carton?

A Yes, sir.
Q Did you mention anything to Aling Neneth?
A I asked her, what's this . . .

Q No, no. no. did you mention anything to Aling Neneth before getting the
carton?
A I think it was Badua who accosted Aling Neneth regarding the buy-bust
money and he asked "Sa iyo galing ang marijuanang ito, nasaan ang buy-
bust money namin?" sir.
Q Making reference to the marijuana that was given by alias Jun?
A Yes, sir.
Q When you proceeded to take hold of this carton, Aling Neneth was not yet
frisked, is it not [sic]?
A I just don't know if she was frisked already by Badua, sir.
Q Who got hold of this?
A I was the one, sir.

Q You were the one who got this?
A Yes, sir.
Q At that particular point in time, you did not know if the alleged buy-bust
money was already retrieved by Badua?
A Yes, sir.
Q You went inside the house?
A Yes, sir.
Q You did not have any search warrant?
A Yes, sir.
Q In fact, there was nothing yet as far as you were concerned to validate the
fact that Mrs. Gadao was in possession of the buy-bust money because
according to you, you did not know whether Badua already retrieved the
buy-bust money from her?
A Yes, sir.
Q How far was this from the door?
A Two and a half meters from the door, sir. It was in plain view.
Q Under the table according to you?
A Yes, sir, dining table.
Q Somewhere here?
A It's far, sir.
PROSECUTOR
May we request the witness to place it, where he saw it? cdtai
A Here, sir.
Q What you see is a carton?
A Yes, sir, with plastic.

Q Marked "Snow Time Ice Pop?"
A Yes, sir.
Q With a piece of plastic visible on top of the carton?
A Yes, sir.
Q That is all that you saw?
A Yes, sir.
PROSECUTOR
For the record, your Honor. . .
Q You were only able to verify according to you . . .
PROSECUTOR
Panero, wait. Because I am objecting to the words a piece of plastic. By
reading it. . .
ATTY. VALDEZ
That's a piece of plastic.
PROSECUTOR
By reading it, it will connote . . . this is not a piece of plastic.
ATTY. VALDEZ
What is that? What can you say, Fiscal? I'm asking you?
PROSECUTOR
With due respect, what I am saying is, let's place the size of the plastic. A
piece of plastic may be big or a small one, for record purposes.
COURT
Leave that to the court.
PROSECUTOR
Leave that to the court.
Q The only reason according to you, you were able to . . . Look at

this, no even Superman . . . I withdraw that. Not even a man with
very kin [ sic] eyes can tell the contents here. And according to the
Court, it could be "tikoy," is it not [ sic]?
A Yes, sir.
Q Siopao?
A Yes, sir.
Q Canned goods?
A Yes, sir.
Q It could be ice cream because it says Snow Pop, Ice Pop?
A I presumed it was also marijuana because it may . . .

Q I am not asking you what your presumptions are. I'm asking you
what it could possibly be.
A It's the same plastic, sir.
ATTY. VALDEZ:
I'm not even asking you that question so why are you voluntarily saying the
information. Let the prosecutor do that for you. cdrep
COURT:
Continue. Next question.
xxx xxx xxx." 1 3 0
PO3 Manlangit and the police team were at appellant Gaddao's house because they
were led there by appellant Doria. The Narcom agents testi ed that they had no
information on appellant Gaddao until appellant Doria named her and led them to her.
1 3 1 Standing by the door of appellant Gaddao's house, PO3 Manlangit had a view of the
interior of said house. Two and a half meters away was the dining table and underneath
it was a carton box. The box was partially open and revealed something wrapped in
plastic.
In his direct examination, PO3 Manlangit said that he was sure that the contents of
the box were marijuana because he himself checked and marked the said contents. 1 3 2 On
cross-examination, however, he admitted that he merely presumed the contents to be
marijuana because it had the same plastic wrapping as the "buy-bust marijuana." A close
scrutiny of the records reveals that the plastic wrapper was not colorless and transparent
as to clearly manifest its contents to a viewer. Each of the ten (10) bricks of
marijuana in the box was individually wrapped in old newspaper and placed
inside plastic bags — white, pink or blue in color . 1 3 3 PO3 Manlangit himself
admitted on cross-examination that the contents of the box could be items
other than marijuana. He did not know exactly what the box contained that he
had to ask appellant Gaddao about its contents . 1 3 4 It was not immediately
apparent to PO3 Manlangit that the content of the box was marijuana . The
marijuana was not in plain view and its seizure without the requisite search warrant was in
violation of the law and the Constitution. 1 3 5 It was fruit of the poisonous tree and should
have been excluded and never considered by the trial court. 1 3 6
The fact that the box containing about six (6) kilos of marijuana 1 3 7 was found in the
house of accused-appellant Gaddao does not justify a nding that she herself is guilty of
the crime charged. 1 3 8 Apropos is our ruling in People v. Aminnudin, 1 3 9 viz: cdphil
"The Court strongly supports the campaign of the government against drug
addiction and commends the efforts of our law enforcement o cers against
those who would in ict this malediction upon our people, especially the
susceptible youth. But as demanding as this campaign may be, it cannot be more
so than the compulsions of the Bill of Rights for the protection of the liberty of
every individual in the realm, including the basest of criminals. The Constitution
covers with the mantle of its protection the innocent and the guilty alike against
any manner of high-handedness from the authorities, however praiseworthy their
intentions.
Those who are supposed to enforce the law are not justi ed in
disregarding the right of the individual in the name of order. Order is too high a
price for the loss of liberty. As Justice Holmes, again, said, 'I think it a less evil
that some criminals should escape than that the government should play an
ignoble part.' It is simply not allowed in the free society to violate a law to enforce
another, especially if the law violated is the Constitution itself." 1 4 0
Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6425, the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended
by Section 13 of Republic Act No. 7659 punishes the "sale, administration, delivery,
distribution and transportation of a prohibited drug" with the penalty of reclusion perpetua
to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10 million, to wit:
"Sec. 4. Sale, Administration, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation
of Prohibited Drugs. — The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, and a ne
ranging from ve hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed
upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, administer, deliver, give
away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any prohibited drug, or
shall act as a broker in any of such transactions. prLL
xxx xxx xxx."
In every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, what is material is the
submission of proof that the sale took place between the poseur-buyer and the seller
thereof and the presentation of the drug, i.e., the corpus delicti, as evidence in court. 1 4 1
The prosecution has clearly established the fact that in consideration of P1,600.00
which he received, accused-appellant Doria sold and delivered nine hundred seventy
(970) grams of marijuana to PO3 Manlangit, the poseur-buyer. The prosecution,
however, has failed to prove that accused-appellant Gaddao conspired with accused-
appellant Doria in the sale of said drug. There being no mitigating or aggravating
circumstances, the lower penalty of reclusion perpetua must be imposed. 1 4 2
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 156, Pasig City
acting as a Special Court in Criminal Case No. 3307-D is reversed and modified as follows:
1. Accused-appellant Florencio Doria y Bolado is sentenced to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00).
2. Accused-appellant Violeta Gaddao y Catama is acquitted.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Martinez,
Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.
Panganiban, J., please see concurring opinion.
Separate Opinions
PANGANIBAN, J., concurring :
I fully concur with the exhaustive and incisive ponencia of Mr. Justice Reynato S.
Puno. This Decision rightfully brings the Court back to well-settled doctrines on
warrantless arrests and searches, which have seemingly been modi ed through an obiter
in People v. Ruben Montilla. 1 I just wish to outline some guidelines on when an arrest or a
search without a warrant is valid. Hopefully, they would be of help, especially to our law
enforcers who are often faced with actual situations that promptly call for their
application. LibLex
Valid Arrests
Without Warrants
Section 5 of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court lays down the basic rule on when an
arrest without a warrant is lawful. It states:
"Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace o cer or a
private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has
personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has
committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who escaped from a
penal establishment or place where he is serving nal judgment or temporarily
con ned while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from
one confinement to another.
xxx xxx xxx"
I shall focus my discussion on the rst two rules, which have been most frequently
misapplied and misinterpreted, not only by law enforcers but some trial judges and
lawyers as well.
At the very outset, I wish to underscore that in both cases the arresting o cer
must have personal knowledge of the fact of the commission of an offense .
Under Section 5 (a), the o cer himself is a witness to the crime; under Section 5 (b), he
knows for a fact that a crime has just been committed. Let me elaborate. cdpr

1. In Flagrante Delicto Arrests
Section 5 (a) is commonly referred to as the rule on in flagrante delicto arrests. 2 The
accused is apprehended at the very moment he is committing or attempting to commit or
has just committed an offense in the presence of the arresting o cer. There are two
elements that must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act
indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a
crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting
officer. 3
It is not su cient that the suspect exhibits unusual or strange acts or simply
appears suspicious. Thus, in the recent en banc case of Malacat v. Court of Appeals, 4 the
Court, through now Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr., held that the fact that the appellant's
eyes were "moving very fast" and looking at every approaching person were not su cient
to suspect him of "attempting to commit a crime," much less to justify his arrest and
subsequent search without a warrant. The Court said that "there was nothing in [Malacat's]
behavior or conduct which could have reasonably elicited even mere suspicion" that he
was armed with a deadly weapon. In other words, there was no overt physical act on the
part of the suspect, positively indicating that he had just committed a crime or was
committing or attempting to commit one. There was, therefore, no valid reason for the
police officers to arrest or search him.
The same was true in People v. Mengote, 5 where the arresting police tried to justify
the warrantless arrest of the appellant on the ground that he appeared suspicious. The
"suspicious" acts consisted of his darting eyes and the fact that his hand was over his
abdomen. The Court, rejecting such justi cation, stated: "By no stretch of the imagination
could it have been inferred from these acts that an offense had just been committed, or
was actually being committed, or was at least being attempted in their presence." 6
In other words, the behavior or conduct of the person to be arrested must be clearly
indicative of a criminal act. If there is no outward indication at all that calls for an arrest,
the suspect cannot be validly apprehended under this paragraph, notwithstanding a tip
from an informant that he would at the time be undertaking a felonious enterprise.
This doctrine found strength in People v. Aminnudin 7 and again in People v.
Encinada. 8 In both cases, the appellants were arrested while disembarking from a ship, on
account of a tip received from an informant that they were carrying prohibited drugs. The
Court invalidated their warrantless arrests, explaining that at the moment of their arrests,
the appellants were simply descending the gangplank, without manifesting any suspicious
behavior that would reasonably invite the attention of the police. To all appearances, they
were not committing a crime; nor was it shown that they were about to do so or had just
done so. There was, therefore, no valid reason for their arrests. LLphil
Adhering to (and having faith in) the above rules, I respectfully disagreed with the
distinguished Mr. Justice Florenz D. Regalado in People v. Montilla, 9 when he upheld the
validity of the warrantless arrest of the appellant while the latter was merely alighting from
a passenger jeepney. I opined that Montilla could not have been perceived as committing a
crime while merely alighting from a jeepney carrying a travelling bag and a carton. He did
not exhibit any overt act or strange conduct that would reasonably arouse in the minds of
the police suspicion that he was embarking on a felonious undertaking. There was no
outward manifestation that he had just committed or was committing or attempting to
commit an offense. Mercifully, the statement of the Court that Montilla's arrest was valid
because he was caught in agrante delicto was only an obiter, for what nally nailed him
down was his implied waiver of any objection to the validity of his arrest.
2. "Hot Pursuit" Arrests
Section 5 (b) is otherwise known as the rule on "hot pursuit" arrests. 1 0 Here, two
elements must also concur prior to the arrest: (1) an "offense has in fact just been
committed," and (2) the arresting o cer "has personal knowledge of facts indicating that
the person to be arrested . . . committed [the offense]." In effecting this type of arrest, "it is
not enough that there is reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has
committed a crime. A crime must in fact or actually have been committed rst. . . The fact
of the commission of the offense must be undisputed." 1 1
Thus, while the law enforcers may not actually witness the execution of acts
constituting the offense, they must have direct knowledge or view of the crime right after
its commission. They should know for a fact that a crime was committed. AND they must
also perceive acts exhibited by the person to be arrested, indicating that he perpetrated
the crime. Again, mere intelligence information that the suspect committed the crime will
not su ce. The arresting o cers themselves must have personal knowledge of facts
showing that the suspect performed the criminal act. Personal knowledge means actual
belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion, based on actual facts, that the person to be
arrested is probably guilty of committing the crime. 1 2 LLjur
In several cases wherein third persons gave law enforcers information that certain
individuals or groups were engaged in some felonious activities, such relayed information
was not deemed equivalent to personal knowledge of the lawmen. In People v. Burgos, 1 3 a
certain Masamlok informed police authorities that the appellant was involved in subversive
activities. Acting on the strength of such information and without securing a judicial
warrant, the police proceeded to appellant's house to arrest him. There, they also allegedly
recovered an unlicensed firearm and subversive materials.
The Court held that there was no personal knowledge on the part of the arresting
o cers, since the information came in its entirety from Masamlok, a civilian. We pointed
out that at the time of his arrest, appellant was not in actual possession of any rearm or
subversive document; neither was he committing a subversive act. 1 4 His warrantless
arrest, therefore, could not be allowed under any of the instances in Rule 113, Section 6
(now 5) of the Rules of Court.
Also in Encinada, the appellant was arrested without a warrant, on the justi cation
that the arresting o cer "received an intelligence report that appellant who was carrying
marijuana would arrive the next morning aboard M/V Sweet Pearl." The Court categorically
stated that such "[r]aw intelligence information is not a su cient ground for a warrantless
arrest." 1 5 And since, at the time of his arrest, no act or fact demonstrating a felonious
enterprise could be ascribed to appellant, there was no valid justification for his arrest.
To be distinguished from the above cases are those involving continuing offenses
for which the culprit could be arrested any time in agrante delicto. In Umil v. Ramos, 1 6
there were strong objections to the warrantless arrest of a suspected member of the New
People's Army (NPA), while he was being treated for a gunshot wound in a hospital. He
alleged that there was no valid justi cation for his arrest without a warrant, because he
was not then committing any offense nor were there any indications that he had just
committed or was about to commit one; he was in fact confined in a hospital. cdtai
The Court held that subversion, for which he was arrested and subsequently
charged, was a continuing offense. For purposes of arrest, the Court said, the NPA
member "did not cease to be, or became less of a subversive, . . . simply because he was,
at the time of his arrest, con ned in the . . . [hospital]." "Unlike other so-called 'common'
offenses, i.e. adultery, murder, arson, etc., which generally end upon their commission,
subversion and rebellion are anchored on an ideological base which compels the repetition
of the same acts of lawlessness and violence until the overriding object of overthrowing
organized government is attained." 1 7
In the above instances where the arrests without warrants were held unlawful, so
were the searches conducted subsequent thereto. Thus, the items seized consequent to
the invalid search, though clearly prohibited by law (e.g. marijuana or unlicensed rearm),
were considered inadmissible as evidence against the person wrongfully arrested.
Important to bear in mind always is that any search conducted without a judicial warrant
must be preceded by a lawful arrest, whether with or without a warrant duly issued
therefor.
To underscore the rationale behind these strict rules, I deem it quite apt to quote
these inspiring words from the precedent-setting case of People v. Burgos: 1 8
"The right of a person to be secure against any unreasonable seizure of his
body and any deprivation of his liberty is a most basic and fundamental one. The
statute or rule which allows exceptions to the requirement of warrants of arrest is
strictly construed. Any exception must clearly fall within the situations when
securing a warrant would be absurd or is manifestly unnecessary as provided by
the Rule. We cannot liberally construe the rule on arrests without warrant or
extend its application beyond the cases speci cally provided by law. To do so
would infringe upon personal liberty and set back a basic right so often violated
and so deserving of full protection."
Valid Searches
Without Warrants
The general rule is that a judicial warrant must rst be duly obtained before search
and seizure may be conducted. The only allowable instances in which a search may be
conducted without a warrant are: (1) search incident to lawful arrest, (2) search pursuant
to the "plain view" doctrine, (3) search of moving vehicles, (4) searches incidental to
violation of customs laws, (5) search with consent, and (6) a "stop and frisk." 1 9 cda
1. Search Incident to Lawful Arrest

Section 12 of Rule 126 provides that a lawfully arrested person may be searched
without a warrant for dangerous weapons or anything else that may be used as evidence
of the offense. Such incidental search is, however, limited to the person of the arrestee at
the time of the apprehension. The search cannot be extended to or made in a place other
than the place of the arrest. 2 0
2. The "Plain View" Doctrine
The "plain view" doctrine applies when the following requisites concur: (1) the law
enforcement o cer is in a position where he has a clear view of a particular area or has
prior justi cation for an intrusion; (2) said o cer inadvertently comes across (or sees in
plain view) a piece of incriminating evidence; and (3) it is immediately apparent to such
o cer that the item he sees may be evidence of a crime or a contraband or is otherwise
subject to seizure. 2 1
3. Search of Moving Vehicles
The warrantless search of moving vehicles (including shipping vessels and aircraft)
is justified by practicability, viz.: 2 2
"The guaranty of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures
construed as recognizing a necessary difference between a search of a dwelling
house or other structure in respect of which a search warrant may readily be
obtained and a search of a ship, motorboat, wagon, or automobile for contraband
goods, where it is not practicable to secure a warrant, because the vehicle can be
quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be
sought. cdasia
xxx xxx xxx

"The automobile is a swift and powerful vehicle . . . Constructed as covered
vehicles to standard form in immense quantities, and with a capacity for speed
rivaling express trains, they furnish for successful commission of crime a
distinguishing means of silent approach and swift escape unknown in the history
of the world before their advent. The question of their police control and
reasonable search on highways or other public place is a serious question far
deeper and broader than their use in so-called 'bootlegging' or 'rum running,'
which in itself is no small matter. While a possession in the sense of private
ownership, they are but a vehicle constructed for travel and transportation on
highways. Their active use is not in homes or on private premises, the privacy of
which the law especially guards from search and seizure without process. The
ba ing extent to which they are successfully utilized to facilitate commission of
crime of all degrees, from those against morality, chastity, and decency to
robbery, rape, burglary, and murder, is a matter of common knowledge. Upon that
problem, a condition, and not a theory, confronts proper administration of our
criminal laws. Whether search of and seizure from an automobile upon a highway
or other public place without a search warrant is unreasonable is in its nal
analysis to be determined as a judicial question in view of all the circumstances
under which it is made."
4. Customs Searches
Under the Tariff and Customs Code, searches, seizures and arrests may be made
even without warrants, for purposes of enforcing customs and tariff laws. Without mention
of the need to priorly obtain a judicial warrant, the Code speci cally allows police
authorities to "enter, pass through or search any land, enclosure, warehouse, store or
building, not being a dwelling house; and also to inspect, search and examine any vessel or
aircraft and any trunk, package, box or envelope or any person on board[;]or stop and
search and examine any vehicle, beast or person suspected of holding or conveying any
dutiable or prohibited article introduced into the Philippines contrary to law." 2 3
5. Search With Consent
Waiver of any objection to the unreasonableness or invalidity of a search is a
recognized exception to the rule against a warrantless search. 2 4 The consent to the
search, however, must be express, knowing and voluntary. A search based merely on
implied acquiescence is not valid, because such consent is not within the purview of the
constitutional guarantee, but only a passive conformity to the search given under
intimidating and coercive circumstances. 2 5

In People v. Lacerna, 2 6 it was held that the otherwise prohibited intrusive search of
appellant's plastic bag was validated by the express consent of appellant himself, who
was observed to be "urbanized in mannerism and speech," and who moreover stated that
he had nothing to hide and had done nothing wrong.
6. "Stop and Frisk"
The "stop and frisk" concept is of American origin, the most notable case thereon
being Terry v . Ohio. 2 7 The idea is that a police o cer may after properly introducing
himself and making initial inquiries, approach and restrain a person manifesting unusual
and suspicious conduct, in order to check, the latter's outer clothing for possibly
concealed weapons. The strict manner in which this notion should be applied has been laid
down as follows: 2 8
". . . where a police o cer observes unusual conduct which leads him
reasonably to conclude in the light of his experience that criminal activity may be
afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently
dangerous, where in the course of investigating this behavior, he identi es
himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the
initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own and
others' safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to
conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an
attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him." cdrep
As in the warrantless arrest of a person reasonably suspected of having just

committed a crime, mere suspicious behavior would not call for a "stop and frisk." There
must be a genuine reason, in accordance with the police o cer's experience and the
surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person to be held has weapons (or
contraband) concealed about him. 2 9
A valid application of the doctrine was recognized in Posadas v. Court of Appeals 3 0
and in Manalili v. Court of Appeals. 3 1 In Manalili, the law enforcers who were members of
the Anti-Narcotics Unit of the Caloocan City Police, observed during their surveillance that
appellant had red eyes and was walking in a wobbly manner along the city cemetery which,
according to police information, was a popular hangout of drug addicts. Based on police
experience, such suspicious behavior was characteristic of persons who were "high" on
drugs. The Court held that past experience and the surrounding circumstances gave the
police su cient reason to stop the suspect and to investigate if he was really high on
drugs. The marijuana that they found in the suspect's possession was held to be
admissible in evidence.
Before I end, I must reiterate that the above exceptions to the general rule on the
necessity of a judicial warrant for any arrest, search and seizure must all be strictly
construed. Foremost in our minds must still be every person's prized and fundamental
right to liberty and security, a right protected and guaranteed by our Constitution. cdphil
WHEREFORE, I vote to ACQUIT Appellant Violeta Gaddao y Catama, as well as to

REDUCE the penalty of Appellant Florencio Dorio y Bolado to reclusion perpetua and a ne
of P500,000.
Footnotes
1. Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by R.A. 7659.
2. Rollo, pp. 6-7.
3. Exhibits "A-1" to "A-4," "B-1" to "B-3."
4. Exhibits "C-1" and "C-2."
5. TSN of February 6, 1996, p. 10.
6. TSN of February 6, 1996, pp. 11-12.
7. TSN of February 6, 1996, p. 18.

8. TSN of March 12, 1996, p. 18.
9. Exhibit "S," Request for Laboratory Examination.
10. Exhibits "Q," and "R;" TSN of March 5, 1996, pp. 2-11.
11. TSN of May 8, 1996, pp. 2-8.
12. TSN of April 10, 1996, pp. 4-17.
13. Decision of the trial court, pp. 13-14, Rollo, pp. 30-31.
14. Brief for Accused-Appellant Florencio Doria, pp. 8, 14, Rollo, pp. 52, 58.
15. Brief for Accused-Appellant Violeta Gaddao, p. 39, Rollo, p. 126.
16. People v. Basilgo, 235 SCRA 191 [1994]; People v. Yap, 229 SCRA 787 [1994]; People v.
Macasa, 229 SCRA 422 [1994].
17. People v. Herrera, 247 SCRA 433 [1995]; People v. Tadepa, 244 SCRA 339 [1995];
People v. Basilgo, supra.
18. 21 Am Jur 2d, "Criminal Law," Sec. 203 [1981 ed.]; see also State v. Campbell, 110 NH
238, 265 A2d 11, 13 [1970] — sale of narcotics; Annotation in 62 ALR 3d 110, Sec. 2[a].
19. 21 Am Jur 2d, "Criminal Law," Sec. 204 [1981 ed.]; see also United States ex rel. Hall v.
Illinois (CA7 Ill) 329 F2d 354, 358-359 cert den 379 US 891, 13 L Ed 2d 94, 85 S Ct 164
[1964] — unlawful sale and possession of narcotic drugs.
20. Id.; see also State v. Campbell, supra, at 13; United States v. Becker (CA2 NY) 62 F2d
1007, 1009 [1933] — sending obscene matter in interstate commerce.
21. 21 Am Jur 2d, "Criminal Law," Sec. 202 [1981 ed.].

22. 287 U.S. 435, 53 S. Ct. 210, 77 L Ed 413 [1932]. This case involved the sale of liquor in
violation of the Prohibition Act. The majority decision was penned by Chief Justice
Hughes. Justice Roberts wrote a concurring opinion.
23. at 287 U.S. 454, 77 L Ed 423; also cited in People v. Bernal (4th Dist) 345 P 2d 140, 143,
174 Cal App 2d 777 [1959]; People v. Outten, 147 NE 2d 284, 285, 13 Ill 2d 21 [1958];
Swift v. Commonwealth, 100 SE 2d 9, 12, 199 Va 420 [1957]; see also 21 Am Jur 2d,
"Criminal Law," Sec. 202.
24. 21 Am Jur 2d, supra, at Sec. 202.
25. People v. Outten, supra, at 286.

26. Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 442, 451-452 [1932].

27. Hoy v. State, 53 Ariz 440, 90 P2d 623, 628-629 [1939] — bribery; see 21 Am Jur 2d,
supra, Sec. 202.
28. Woo Wai v. United States, 233 Fed. 412 (6th Cir. 1916); Sorrells v. United States, supra,
at 452 — the defense is available, not in the view that the accused though guilty may go
free, but that the government cannot be permitted to contend that he is guilty of the
crime when the government officials are the instigators of his conduct; see also 22
C.J.S., "Criminal Law," Sec. 45, [1940 ed.].
29. 21 Am Jur 2d, "Criminal Law," Sec. 203.

30. Christopher Moore, "The Elusive Foundation of the Entrapment Defense," Northwestern
University Law Review, vol. 89: 1151, 1153-1154 [Spring 1995]; Scott C. Paton, "The
Government Made Me Do It: A Proposed Approach to Entrapment under Jacobson v.
United States," Cornell Law Review, vol. 79:885, 1000-1001 [1994]; Roger Park, "The
Entrapment Controversy," Minnesota Law Review, vol. 60: 163, 165 [1976].
31. The "subjective" test is also referred to as the Sherman-Sorrells doctrine, a reference to
the fact that the test was adopted by a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court in the cases
of Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369, 2 L Ed 2d 848, 78 S Ct 819 [1958] and Sorrells
v. United States, supra — Wayne R. LaFave and Austin W. Scott, Jr., Criminal Law,
Hornbook series, 2d ed., p. 422 [1986].
32. Sorrells v. United States, supra, at 451-452; Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369, 373,
2 L ed 2d 848, 78 S Ct 819 [1958].
33. Paton, supra, at 1001-1002.
34. LaFave and Scott, supra, at 422.

35. Sherman v. United States, supra, at 356 U.S. at 372-373.
36. United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 435-437, 36 L Ed 2d 366, 3750376, 93 S Ct 1637
[1973]; see also Park, supra, at 165.
37. Or the Roberts-Frankfurter approach, after the writers of the concurring opinions in
Sorrells and Sherman — LaFave and Scott, supra, at 423.
38. 457 P. 2d 226 [Alaska 1969].
39. Grossman v. State, 457 P. 2d 226, 229 [Alaska 1969]; Paton, supra, at 1002.
40. Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. at 453, Roberts, J ., concurring; Sherman v. United
States, 356 U.S. at 378-385, Frankfurter, J., concurring.
41. Grossman v. State, 457 P. 2d 226, 229 [Alaska 1969].
42. People v. Barraza, 591 P. 2d 947, 955 [California 1979] — selling heroin.
43. People v. Barraza, supra, at 955.
44. Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369, 383 [1958] Frankfurter, J., concurring;
Grossman v. State, supra, at 230; see also Park, supra, Note 212, at 227.
45. LaFave and Scott, supra, at 424.
46. Grossman v. State, supra, at 230; People v. Barraza, supra, at 955-956.
47. LaFave and Scott, supra, at 425-426.

48. Id. Other objections are also discussed in said book.
49. Id.
50. Id.
51. Paton, supra, at 1005-1006.
52. 465 So. 2d 516 [Fla. 1985].
53. Id. at 521-522.
54. 742 P. 2d 1043 [N.M. 1987].
55. Paton, supra, at 1039.
56. 16 Phil. 440 [1910].
57. This case was interpreted in People v. Hilario and Aguila, 93 Phil. 386, 390 [1953],
where the Supreme Court declared that the "criminal intent" to smoke opium "originated
in the mind of the entrapping agent" and the accused was merely induced to commit the
act by repeated and persistent solicitation. In Phelps, the court disregarded the evidence
of Phelps' predisposition to commit the crime.
58. Id., at 443-444.
59. 46 Phil. 857 [1923].
60. Id., at 861.
61. 56 Phil. 44 [1931].
62. Id. at 53-54.

63. Id.
64. Page 88, section 57.
65. Id., at 52-53; also cited in People v. Hilario and Aguila, 93 Phil. 386, 389-390 [1953].
66. 40 O.G. No. 23, p. 4476 [1941].
67. Id., at 4478.
68. 43 O.G. No. 4, p. 1286 [1947].
69. Id., at 1287.

70. 96 Phil. 738, 741 [1955].
71. Id.; also cited in Aquino, Revised Penal Code, vol. 2, p. 240 [1997].
72. Absolutory causes are those causes where the act committed is a crime but for reasons
of public policy and sentiment there is no penalty imposed — Reyes, Revised Penal Code,
Book I, pp. 231-232 [1993].
73. People v. Cruz, 231 SCRA 759 [1994]; People v. Poliza, 214 SCRA 56 [1992]; People v.
Lapatha, 167 SCRA 159 [1988] citing U.S. v. Phelps, supra; People v. Flores, 165 SCRA 71
[1988]; People v. Ale, 145 SCRA 50 [1986]; People v. Fernando, 145 SCRA 151 [1986];
People v. Patog, 144 SCRA 429 [1986]; People v. Valmores, 122 SCRA 922 [1983] citing
People v. Lua Chu, etc.
74. 152 SCRA 263, 271 [1987]. Although the accused did not raise the defense of
instigation, the court examined the conduct of the police at the buy-bust operation and
admitted evidence of the accused's past and predisposition to commit the crime.
75. Accused was previously convicted of frustrated murder, robbery, hold-up and drug
pushing. In the drug-pushing case, he was detained at Welfareville but escaped — People
v. Boholst, 152 SCRA 263, 271 [1987].
76. 188 SCRA 1, 15 [1990].
77. Richard C. Donnelly, "Judicial Control of Informants, Spies, Stool Pigeons and Agent
Provocateurs," The Yale Law Journal, vol. 60: 1091, 1093 [1951].
78. Reyes, Revised Penal Code, Book I, pp. 54-55 [1993].

79. Id.
80. Donnelly, supra, at 1093. Instead of "mala prohibita," Donnelly uses the term "regulatory
statutes."
81. Id.
82. Id.
83. Id., at 1094.
84. People v. Simon, 234 SCRA 555, 563 [1994]; People v. Cruz, 231 SCRA 759, 764 [1994];
People v. Crisostomo, 222 SCRA 511, 514 [1993]; People v. Fernando, 145 SCRA 151,
159 [1986]; People v. Ale, 145 SCRA 50, 58-59 [1986].
85. Id.
86. People v. Cruz, 231 SCRA 759, 764-765 [1994]; People v. Salcedo, 195 SCRA 345, 352
[1991]; People v. William, 209 SCRA 808, 814 [1992]; People v. Ale, 145 SCRA 50, 58-59
[1986].
87. 591 P. 2d 947 [Cal. 1979].
88. Id. at 955. The Supreme Court of California quoted Richard C. Donnelly, "Judicial
Control of Informants, Spies, Stool Pigeons and Agent Provocateurs," Yale Law Journal,
vol. 60: 1091, 1111 [1951], also herein cited; See also Paton, Cornell Law Review, supra,
at Note 55. It must be noted, however, that entrapment is not based on constitutional
grounds as search and seizure and forced confessions — United States v. Russell, 411
U.S. 423, 430, 36 L Ed 2d 366, 372-373, 93 S Ct 1637 [1973].
89. Tambasen v. People, 246 SCRA 184 [1995]; People v. Rigodon, 238 SCRA 27 [1994];
People v. Cruz, 231 SCRA 759, 771 [1994].
90. Sorrells v. United States, supra, at 457, Roberts, J ., concurring.
91. Tambasen v. People, 246 SCRA 184, 191 [1995]; People v. Rigodon, 238 SCRA 27, 35
[1994]; People v. Cruz, 231 SCRA 759, 771 [1994].
92. People v. Tadepa, 244 SCRA 339, 341-342 [1995]; People v. Crisostomo, 222 SCRA 511,
515 [1993].
93. People v. Gireng, 241 SCRA 11 [1995]; People v. Nicolas, 241 SCRA 67 [1995]; People v.
Marcelo, 223 SCRA 24 [1993].
94. People v. Ale, 145 SCRA 50 [1994].
95. People v. Sillo, 214 SCRA 74 [1992].
96. People v. Sahagun, 182 SCRA 91 [1990]; People v. Libag, 184 SCRA 707, 717-715
[1990]; People v. Ramos, 186 SCRA 184, 191-192 [1990].
97. People v. Lucero, 229 SCRA 1, 9-10 [1994]; People v. Tranca, 235 SCRA 455, 464 [1994];
People v. Solon, 244 SCRA 554, 561 [1995]; People v. Herrera, 247 SCRA 433 [1995].
98. People v. Solon, 244 SCRA 554 [1995]; People v. Ong Co, 245 SCRA 733 [1995].
99. TSN of February 20, 1996, pp. 14-18; Emphasis supplied.
100. TSN of February 20, 1996, pp. 16-17.
101. People v. Ponsica, 230 SCRA 87, 95-96 [1994]; People v. Agustin, 215 SCRA 725, 732-
733 [1992].
102. People v. Agustin, supra, at 732-733.

103. Emphasis supplied.
104. People v. Sibug, 229 SCRA 489 [1994]; People v. de Lara, 236 SCRA 291 [1994]; People
v. Labarias, 217 SCRA 483 [1993].
105. Sections 2 and 3 (2), Article III.
106. Hizon v. Court of Appeals, 265 SCRA 517, 527 [1996]; People v. Fernandez, 239 SCRA
174, 182-183 [1994]; Roan v. Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687, 697 [1986]; see also Bernas, The
Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, p. 169 [1996]; Cruz, Constitutional Law,
pp. 147-153 [1986].
107. Section 12, Rule 126; Section 5, Rule 113, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
108. People v. Bagista, 214 SCRA 63, 69 [1992]; People v. Lo Ho Wing, 193 SCRA 122, 126-
128 [1991].
109. Roldan, Jr. v. Arca, 65 SCRA 336, 348 [1975]; Papa v. Mago, 22 SCRA 857, 871-874
[1968].
110. People v. Tabar, 222 SCRA 144, 153 [1993]; Roan v. Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687, 697
[1986].
111. People v. Tabar, supra, at 153-154; Alvarez v. CFI, 64 Phil. 33, 48 [1937]; People v.
Kagui Malasugui, 63 Phil. 221, 226 [1936].
112. TSN of February 20, 1996, pp. 17-18; Direct examination; Emphasis supplied.
113. TSN of March 12, 1996, pp. 16-18, Cross-examination by counsel for Violeta Gaddao;
Emphasis supplied.
114. Compare with People v. Bati, 189 SCRA 97, 103 [1990], where the two accused were
pursued and arrested a few minutes after consummating the sale of marijuana. "Hot
pursuit" has a technical meaning. It is a doctrine in International Law which means the
pursuit in the high seas of a foreign vessel undertaken by the coastal state which has
good reason to believe that the ship has violated the laws and regulations of that state
(Salonga and Yap, Public International Law, p. 90 [1992]).
115. Umil v. Ramos, 202 SCRA 251, 263 [1991]; United States v. Santos, 36 Phil. 851 [1917].
Police officers had personal knowledge of the actual commission of the crime after
conducting a surveillance of the accused (People v. Bati, 189 SCRA 97 [1990]; People v.
Sucro, 195 SCRA 388 [1990]), or a prior test-buy operation (People v. Ramos, 186 SCRA
184 [1990]).
116. Id.
117. Id.
118. PO3 Manlangit affirmed this fact in his cross-examination by counsel for appellant
Gaddao — TSN of February 20, 1996, pp. 42-43.
119. SPO1 Badua's testimony does not clearly establish where he found the marked bills —
whether from appellant Gaddao's person or after a search of her house.
120. Pamaran, The 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure Annotated, p. 195 [1995].
121. Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234, 19 L. Ed. 2d 1067, 1069 [1968]; see also Bernas,
supra, at 174.
122. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 29 L. Ed. 2d 564 [1971]; Texas v. Brown,
460 U.S. 730, 75 L. Ed. 2d 502, 510 [1983]; see also People v. Musa, 217 SCRA 597, 611
[1993] citing both cases.
123. Harris v. United States, supra, at 1069.
124. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra, at 582.
125. Roan v. Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687, 697 [1986]; Cruz, supra, at 151.
126. Roan v. Gonzales, supra, at 697, citing Harris v. United States, supra; Bernas, supra, at
174 citing Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 472 [1971].
127. Robbins v. California, 453 U.S. 420, 69 L. Ed. 2d 744, 751 [1981]; also cited in People v.
Musa, supra, at 612 and Note 48; Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753, 61 L. Ed. 2d 235,
245, Note 13 [1979].
128. Robbins v. California, supra, at 751; Texas v. Brown, supra, at 514.
129. People v. Musa, supra, at 611.
130. TSN of February 20, 1996, pp. 44-47; Emphasis supplied.
131. TSN of February 20, 1996, p. 31.
132 TSN of February 20, 1996, pp. 15-16.

133. Exhibits "F," "G," "H," "I," "J," "K," "L," "M," "N," "O;" TSN of February 20, 1996, pp. 22-25;
see also Exhibit "S—" Request for Laboratory Examination.
134. In People v. Musa, 217 SCRA 597, 612 [1993], the Narcom agents found marijuana in
a plastic bag hanging in one corner of the kitchen. The agents had no clue as to the
contents of the bag and had to ask the accused what it contained. The Supreme Court
held that the marijuana was not in plain view.
135. Section 2, Bill of Rights, 1987 Constitution.
136. People v. Aminnudin, 163 SCRA 403, 410 [1988].

137. The total weight of 7,641.08 grams or 7.6 kilos of marijuana included the 970 grams
(or almost one kilo) of "buy-bust marijuana" given by appellant Doria (See "Request for
Laboratory Examination," Exhibit "S"). Deducting this 970 grams, the ten bricks of
marijuana found in the box weigh 6,671.08 grams or approximately 6 kilos.
138. People v. Aminnudin, 163 SCRA 402, 410 [1988].

139. Id.
140. Id., at 410-411; also cited in People v. Flores, 165 SCRA 71, 85 [1988].
141. People v. Zervoulakos, 241 SCRA 625 [1995]; People v. Martinez, 235 SCRA 171
[1994]; People v. Rigodon, 238 SCRA 27 [1994]. The exclusion or absence of the marked
money does not create a hiatus in the prosecution's evidence as long as the drug subject
of the illegal transaction was presented at the trial court — People v. Nicolas, 241 SCRA
573 [1995]; People v. Lucero, 229 SCRA 1 [1994].
142. Section 23, R.A. 7659 amending Article 62 of the Dangerous Drugs Act; see also
Section 17 (5), R.A. 7659 amending Section 20 of the Dangerous Drugs Act.
PANGANIBAN, J., concurring:
1. GR No. 123872, January 30, 1998.
2. Malacat v. Court of Appeals, 283 SCRA 159,174, December 12, 1997.
3. People v. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1, 14, September 4, 1986; citing Sayo v. Chief of Police, 80
Phil. 859 (1948).
4. Malacat v. CA, supra.
5. 210 SCRA 174, June 22, 1992, per Cruz, J.
6. Ibid., p. 180.
7. 163 SCRA 402, July 6, 1988, per Cruz, J.
8. 280 SCRA 72, October 2, 1997, per Panganiban, J.
9. Supra.
11. People v. Burgos, supra, p. 15, per Gutierrez, J.
12 Umil v. Ramos, 202 SCRA 251, 263, October 3, 1991.
13. Supra.
14. Supra, p. 14.
15. Supra, p. 87.
16. 187 SCRA 311, July 9, 1990; 202 SCRA 251, October 3, 1991 (per curiam).
17. The Anti-Subversion Law, which prohibited mere membership in a subversive
organization, has since been repealed.
18. Supra, p. 14, per Gutierrez, J.
19. Malacat v. CA, supra, p. 174; citing Mustang Lumber v. Court of Appeals, 257 SCRA
430, 450,1996; Moreno v. Ago Chi, 12 Phil 439 (1909); Rule 126, § 12, Rules of Court; and
Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1, 88 S Ct 1868, 20 L Ed 2d 889 (1968). See also Roan v. Gonzales,
145 SCRA 687, 697, November 25, 1986; citing several cases.
20. Concurring Opinion of Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee in Nolasco v. Paño, 147 SCRA
509, 515, January 30, 1987.
21. People v. Musa, 217 SCRA 597, 611, January 27, 1993; citing Coolidge v. new
Hampshire, 403 US 443, 29 L ed. 2d 564, 583 (1971); Texas v. Brown, 460 US 730, 75 L
ed. 2d 502 (1983); Concurring Opinion by Stewart, Brennan and White, JJ , in Stanley v.
Georgia, 394 US 557, 22 L ed. 2d 542 (1969); and Walter v. US , 447 US 649, 65 L ed. 2d
410 (1980).
22. Papa v. Mago, 22 SCRA 857, 873-874 (1968), per Zaldivar, J .; quoting from 47 Am Jur
513-514, citing Carroll v. United States, 267 US 132, 69 L ed. 543, 45 S Ct. 280, 39 ALR
790; and People v. Case, 320 Mich 379, 190 NW 389, 27 ALR 686. See also Roldan v.
Arca, 65 SCRA 336.
23. Papa v. Mago, ibid., pp. 871-872, citing pertinent provisions of the Tariff and Customs
Code and Carroll v. United States, 39 ALR 790, 799. See also People v. CFI of Rizal, Br. IX
, 101 SCRA 86, November 17, 1980.
24. People v. Lacerna, 278 SCRA 561, 576, September 5, 1997; People v. Fernandez, 239
SCRA 174, December, 17, 1994; People v. Barros, 231 SCRA 557, March 29, 1994; People
v. Damaso, 212 SCRA 547, August 12, 1992.
25. Aniag v. Commission on Elections, 237 SCRA 424, 436-437, October 7, 1994.
26. Supra.
27. 392 US 1; 88 S Ct. 1868; 20 L ed. 2d 889 (1968).
28. Ibid., p. 911, quoted in Malacat v. CA, supra.

30. 188 SCRA 288, August 2, 1992, per Gancayco, J.
31. 280 SCRA 400, October 9, 1997, per Panganiban, J.

G.R. No. 125299 - People v. Doria y Bolado

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 125299 - People v. Doria y Bolado

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

G.R. No. 125299 - People v. Doria y Bolado

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 125299. January 22, 1999.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , plaintiff-appellee, vs . FLORENCIO

Singson Valdez & Associates for Gaddao.

Accused-appellants were charged with violation of Section 4, in relation to Section

1. CRIMINAL LAW; DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972; THE "OBJECTIVE TEST"

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; NON-PRESENTATION OF THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT IS NOT

3. ID.; ID.; WARRANTLESS ARRESTS, SEARCHES AND SEIZURES; THE

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

On December 7, 1995, accused-appellants Florencio Doria y Bolado and Violeta

The prosecution contends the offense was committed as follows: In November

According to the amendatory provisions of Sec. 13 of Republic Act No.

Before this Court, accused-appellant Doria assigns two errors, thus:

Accused-appellant Violeta Gaddao contends:

It is recognized that in every arrest, there is a certain amount of entrapment used to

"ENTRAPMENT AND INSTIGATION. — While it has been said that the

Though considered essential by the police in enforcing vice legislation, the

Witness bringing out from the said box . . .

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

xxx xxx xxx.

Q Point to the court, where are those markings?

We submit, your Honor.

A Yes, your Honor.

xxx xxx xxx.

Q How about this one?

May it be of record that this was just entered this morning.

May we place on record that the one that was enclosed. . .

Noted. The court saw it.

xxx xxx xxx.

xxx xxx xxx." 9 9

"Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace o cer or a

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has

(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he

Under Section 5 (a), as above-quoted, a person may be arrested without a warrant if he

A It was given to me by suspect Jun, sir.

There is. Answer.

A These other marijuana bricks, because during our follow-up, because

A At Daang Bakal near the crime scene at Shaw Boulevard, sir.

Q You mentioned "him?"

Q And what happened?

xxx xxx xxx." 1 1 2

SPO1 Badua testified on cross-examination that:

A To arrest her, sir.

Q She was fetching water as a matter of fact?

A She was 'sa bandang poso.'

A I just saw her outside, sir.

A PO3 Manlangit, sir.

A I was just watching, sir.

A PO3 Manlangit, sir.

Q Manlangit got the marijuana?

Q And the money from Aling Neneth?

A Yes, sir, the buy-bust money.

A I saw it, sir.

I am through with this witness, your Honor." 113

Accused-appellant Gaddao was not caught red-handed during the buy-bust

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

Q At that particular instance, you saw the carton?

Q I noticed that this carton has a cover?