People Vs de Lara
People Vs de Lara
People Vs de Lara
QUIASON, J.:
This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 28, Manila in Criminal
Case No. 94953, finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 4 of
Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by B.P. Blg. 179.
That on or about January 9, 1987, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not being
authorized by law to sell, deliver, give away to another or distribute any prohibited drug, did
then and there willfully and unlawfully sell or offer for sale two (2) foils of flowering tops of
marijuana and one (1) plastic bag of flowering tops of marijuana, which are prohibited drugs
(Rollo, p. 6).
Upon arraignment, appellant, assisted by his counsel de parte,pleaded not guilty to the
information (Records p. 5).
II
On December 15, 1986, Capt. Restituto Cablayan of the National Criminal Investigation Service
(NCIS) of the Western Police District (WPD), instructed Sgt. Enrique David to conduct a
surveillance operation in the vicinity of Garrido and Zamora Streets at Sta. Ana, Manila, after
receiving reports of rampant drug-pushing in that area (TSN, December 14, 1987, p. 21).
In compliance thereof, a team led by Sgt. Enrique David, conducted a surveillance operation on
December 15 and 17, and confirmed the reported drug-pushing activities in that area by the
group of appellant and a certain Ricky alias "Pilay" (TSN, December 2, 1987, pp. 5-6). No arrest
was made because the team was instructed by their superior to conduct a surveillance
operation only (TSN, January 11, 1988, p. 28).
On January 8, 1987, Malaya (Exh. "F") and People's Tonight (Exh. "K"), reported that there were
rampant, drug-pushing activities in the vicinity of Garrido and Zamora Streets in Sta. Ana,
Manila, prompting Gen. Alfredo Lim, then WPD Superintendent, to reprimand the NCIS office
(TSN, December 2, 1987, p. 2).
On January 9, because of the reprimand given by Gen. Lim, Capt. Cablayan instructed Sgt. David
to plan a buy-bust operation and to form a
six-man team with Pfc. Martin Orolfo, Jr. as the poseur-buyer (TSN, December 2, 1987, p. 6,
January 11, 1988, p. 6).
At around 4:45 P.M. of the same day, the team, together with their confidential informant,
went to Garrido Street. Upon arriving threat, they strategically positioned themselves. Pfc.
Orolfo, Jr. and the confidential informant proceeded to the house of appellant located at No.
2267 Garrido Street, where they saw him standing outside. The confidential informant
introduced Pfc. Orolfo, Jr. to appellant as an interested buyer of marijuana. Appellant asked Pfc.
Orolfo, Jr. "Ilan ang bibilhin ninyo?" (How much will you buy?). Pfc. Orolfo, Jr., replied: "Two
foils" handing at the same time the marked twenty-peso bill (Exh. "E") to appellant. The latter,
after placing the money in the right pocket of his pants, went inside his house (TSN, January 11,
1988, pp. 7-9). Minutes later, appellant came back and handed two foils (Exhs. "D-1-a" and "D-
1-b") wrapped in onion paper (TSN, January 11, 1988, p. 8). It was after he handed the two foils
to Pfc. Orolfo Jr., that he sensed the presence of the police operatives. He then tried to retrieve
the two foils but Pfc. Orolfo, Jr. prevented him from doing so. During the scuffle, one foil was
torn. Appellant then ran inside his house with Pfc. Orolfo, Jr. in pursuit. The latter was able to
subdue appellant. Sgt. David confronted appellant, who admitted that he kept prohibited drugs
in his house. Appellant showed the arresting officers a blue plastic bag with white lining
containing prohibited drugs. A receipt of the articles seized (Exh. "F") was made by Pfc. Orolfo,
Jr. (TSN, January 11, 1988, pp. 12-15).
Thereafter, the team, together with appellant, proceeded to the WPD headquarters for
investigation. Thereat, Sgt. David ordered Pfc. Orolfo, Jr. to commence the investigation of
appellant (TSN, January 11, 1988, pp. 19-21).
During the investigation, appellant was apprised of his constitutional rights to remain silent and
to have the assistance of counsel. When appellant was asked to give a written statement, he
refused to do so pending arrival of his lawyer (TSN, January 11, 1988, p. 23).
The prohibited drugs seized from appellant were brought to the NBI for chemical analysis. A
report and certification of Ms. Aida Pascual, Forensic Chemist of the NBI (Exhs. "C" and "D"),
show the drugs to be positive for marijuana.
Appellant denied having sold marijuana to anyone and claimed that the arresting officers
merely planted the marijuana on his person. He testified that on January 9, 1987, he arrived
home from work as a security guard of the Vergara Brothers Agency at around 3:00 P.M. After
changing his clothes, he went out to fetch his son, who was left in the care of a neighbor. Upon
returning to his house with his son, he was arrested by the police. The police proceeded to
search his house, without any search warrant shown to him. After the search, he and his wife
were brought to the WPD headquarters. He claimed that inspite of his protestation that he
would like to wait for his lawyer before giving any statement, the police continued their
interrogation.
Appellant denied that the twenty-peso bill was given to him by the poseur-buyer. He claimed
that he was merely forced to sign his name on the photocopy of the twenty-peso bill (Exh. "F")
and that the first time he saw the blue plastic bag containing prohibited drugs was when he was
at the police station (TSN, June 14, 1988, pp. 1-11).
To corroborate his story, appellant presented his younger brother, Gerry de Lara.
On October 2, 1989, the trial court rendered its decision, disposing as follows:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of violation of Sec 4, Art II of R.A. 6425 as amended as charged in the Information; and this
Court hereby sentences the accused to suffer a penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of
P20,000.00 (Rollo, p. 24).
III
In his appeal, appellant questions the legality of his arrest and the seizure of prohibited drugs
found inside his house. Furthermore, he claims that he was not assisted by counsel during his
custodial interrogation (Rollo, pp. 55-57).
As to the legality of appellant's arrest, we find that the police operatives acted within the
bounds of law.
Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedures dealing with warrantless arrests
provides:
Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer 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;
In the case at bench, appellant was caught red-handed in delivering two tin foils of marijuana to
Pat. Orolfo, Jr., the poseur-buyer. Applying the aforementioned provision of law, appellant's
arrest was lawfully effected without need of a warrant of arrest. "Having caught the
appellant in flagrante as a result of the buy-bust operation, the policemen were not only
authorized but were also under obligation to apprehend the drug pusher even without a
warrant of arrest" (People v. Kalubiran, 196 SCRA 644 [1991]; People vs. De Los Santos, 200
SCRA 431 [1991]).
Appellant, however, asseverates that his arrest was precipitated only by newspaper
publications about the rampant sale of drugs along Garrido and Zamora Streets, Sta. Ana,
Manila (Rollo, p. 53). If appellant implies that the police merely stage-managed his arrest in
order to show that they were not remiss in their duties, then appellant is wrong. A surveillance
on the illegal activities of the appellant was already conducted by the police as early as
December 15 and 17, 1986. The newspaper reports concerning the illegal drug activities came
out only on January 8 and 14, 1987, long after the police knew of the said illegal activities.
Appellant's eventual arrest on January 9, 1987 was the result of the surveillance conducted and
the buy-bust operation.
The evidence shows that appellant ran inside his house upon sensing the presence of the police
operatives. The testimony of Pat. Orolfo, Jr., the poseur-buyer, is as follows:
FISCAL:
Q: After placing the P20 bill in his right pocket, what did he do?
A: He handed to me two tin foils containing suspected marijuana leaves wrapped in onion
paper.
A: After he handed to me two foils, he sensed the presence of the operatives and he tried to
retrieve the two foils, sir, and I prevented him and during the scuffle one piece of foil was
broken, he tried to run inside the house, so I subdued him immediately and apprehended him
while he was inside the house.
A: Sgt. David confronted him regarding this case and he voluntarily admitted that he was still
keeping prohibited drugs inside his house?
Q: What did the group do after he voluntarily admitted that he was keeping prohibited drugs
inside his house?
A: He pointed inside his house (sic) one plastic bag colored blue with white lining containing
prohibited drug" (TSN, January 11, 1988, pp. 12-14).
The policemen's entry into the house of appellant without a search warrant was in hot-pursuit
of a person caught committing an offense in flagrante. The arrest that followed the hot-pursuit
was valid (1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 113, Section 5[a]).
We also find as valid the seizure of the plastic bag of prohibited drugs found inside appellant's
house.
The seizure of the plastic bag containing prohibited drugs was the result of appellant's arrest
inside his house. A contemporaneous search may be conducted upon the person of the
arrestee and the immediate vicinity where the arrest was made (People v. Castiller, 188 SCRA
376 [1990]).
We find to be meritorious appellant's claim that he was not assisted by counsel during the
custodial investigation, specifically when he was forced to sign the photocopy of the marked
twenty-peso bill (Exh. "E"), Receipt of Property Seized (Exh. "F"), and the Booking and
Information Sheet (Exh. "H").
The said documents are inadmissible in evidence for the reason that there was no showing that
appellant was then assisted by counsel nor his waiver thereto put into writing (Constitution,
Art. III, Sec. 3[2]).
Be that as it may, the rejection of said evidence would not affect the conviction of appellant in
view of the abundance of other evidence establishing his guilt. The ruling in People v. Mauyao,
207 SCRA 732 (1992) is apropos:
It bears emphasis, however, that the accused appellant's conformity to the questioned
documents has not been a factor at all in his conviction. For even if these documents were
disregarded, still the accused-appellant's guilt has been adequately established by other
evidence of record. The trial court's verdict was based on the evidence of the prosecution not
on his signatures on the questioned documents. Accused-appellant's denial simply can not
prevail over the detailed and unshaken testimonies of the apprehending officers who caught
him red-handed selling marijuana and who have not shown to have any ulterior motive to
testify falsely against accused-appellant.
IV
The trial court sentenced appellant to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine
of P20,000.00 pursuant to Section 4, Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended
by B.P. Blg. 179. However, said law was further amended by R.A. No. 7659.
Under Section 17 of R.A. No. 7659, the penalty to be imposed for selling, administering,
delivering or distributing less than 750 grams of marijuana, shall range from "prision
correccional to reclusion perpetua depending upon the quantity."
Under Section 4 of R.A. No. 7659, the penalty for selling, dispensing, delivering, transporting or
distributing marijuana in excess of 750 grams or more shall be "reclusion perpetua to death and
a fine ranging from Five Hundred Thousand Pesos to Ten Million Pesos."
We noticed that the penalty of reclusion perpetua was imposed by R.A. No. 7659 as the
maximum penalty when the quantity of the marijuana involved in the offense is less than 750
grams and at the same time as the minimum penalty when the quantity of marijuana involved
is 750 grams or more. It is the duty of the Court to harmonize conflicting provisions to give
effect to the whole law (Rufino Lopez and Sons v. Court of Appeals, 100 Phil. 850 [1957]).
Furthermore, one of this Court's primordial responsibilities is to give a statute its sensible
construction. This is to effectuate the intention of the legislature so as to avoid an absurd
conclusion with regard to its meaning (Lamb v. Phipps, 22 Phil. 456 [1912]). Therefore, when
the quantity involved is less than 750 grams, Section 17 of R.A. No. 7659 should be read
correctly to provide a penalty ranging from prision correccional to reclusion temporalonly.
The provision of Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, which states that "penal laws shall have a
retroactive effect insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony," finds meaning in this case.
Appellant is entitled to benefit from the reduction of the penalty introduced by R.A. No. 7659.
In order to determine the penalty to be imposed on appellant, we first divide the amount of
750 grams into three to correspond to the three applicable penalties, namely, prision
correccional, prision mayor and reclusion temporal.
If the marijuana involved is from 500 to 749 grams, the penalty to be imposed is reclusion
temporal. If the marijuana involved is from 250 to 499 grams, the penalty to be imposed
is prision mayor and if the weight of the marijuana involved is below 250 grams, the penalty to
be imposed is prision correccional.
Since there is no evidence as to the weight of the two foils and one plastic bag of flowering tops
of marijuana seized from appellant, we resolve the doubt in favor of appellant and conclude
that the quantity involved was: (i) below 750 grams; and (ii) not less than 250 but not more
than 499 grams.
Hence, the maximum penalty that can be imposed on appellant isprision mayor. Applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law to appellant, who was convicted under a special law (People vs.
Macantando, 109 SCRA 35 [1981]), and as such law was interpreted in People v. Simon, G.R. No.
93028, July 29, 1994, the minimum penalty that can be imposed on appellant should be within
the range of prision correccional.
WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with the modification that appellant
shall suffer an indeterminate penalty of FOUR (4) years and TWO (2) days of prision
correccional, as minimum, to EIGHT (8) years and ONE (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum.
SO ORDERED.