People vs. de Lara
People vs. de Lara
People vs. De Lara The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
G.R. No. 94953. September 5, 1994.* The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ARMANDO DE Tan, Manzano & Velez for accused-appellant.
LARA Y GALARO, accused-appellant.
QUIASON, J.:
Criminal Law; Dangerous Drugs Act; Evidence; Arrest; Having caught the
appellant in flagrante as a result of the buy-bust operation, the policemen were not This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 28, Manila in
only authorized but were also under obligation to apprehend the drug pusher even Criminal Case No. 94953, finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
without a warrant of arrest.—In the case at bench, appellant was caught red-handed violating Section 4 of Republic
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 VOL. 236, SEPTEMBER 5, 1994
effected without need of a warrant of arrest. “Having caught the appellant in People vs. De Lara
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 Act No. 6425, as amended by B.P. Blg. 179.
a warrant of arrest.” I
The Information charged appellant as follows:
Same; Same; Same; Same; The arrest that followed the hotpursuit was valid.—The “That on or about January 9, 1987, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said
policemen’s entry into the house of appellant without a search warrant was in hot- accused, not being authorized by law to sell, deliver, give away to another or
pursuit of a person caught committing an offense in flagrante. The arrest that distribute any prohibited drug, did then and there willfully and unlawfully sell or
followed the hotpursuit was valid. 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).
Same; Same; Same; Same; A contemporaneous search may be conducted upon the
person of the arrestee and the immediate vicinity where the arrest was made.—The Upon arraignment, appellant, assisted by his counsel de parte, pleaded not guilty to
seizure of the plastic bag containing prohibited drugs was the result of appellant’s the information (Records, p. 5).
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. II
On December 15, 1986, Capt. Restituto Cablayan of the National Criminal
Same; Same; Same; Constitutional Law; The documents are inadmissible in Investigation Service (NCIS) of the Western Police District (WPD), instructed Sgt.
evidence for the reason that there was no showing that appellant was then assisted Enrique David to conduct a surveillance operation in the vicinity of Garrido and
by counsel nor his waiver thereto put into writing.—The said documents are Zamora Streets at Sta. Ana, Manila, after receiving reports of rampant drug-pushing
inadmissible in evidence for the reason that there was no showing that appellant was in that area (TSN, December 14, 1987, p. 21).
then assisted by counsel nor his waiver thereto put into writing.
In compliance thereof, a team led by Sgt. Enrique David, conducted a surveillance
Same; Same; Penalty; Section 4, Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 as operation on December 15 and 17, and confirmed the reported drug-pushing
amended by B.P. Blg. 179 was further amended by R.A. No. 7659.—The trial court activities in that area by the group of appellant and a certain Ricky alias “Pilay”
sentenced appellant to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of (TSN, December 2, 1987, pp. 5-6). No arrest was made because the team was
P20,000.00 pursuant to Section 4, Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as instructed by their superior to conduct a surveillance operation only (TSN, January
amended by B.P. Blg. 179. However, said law was further amended by R.A. No. 11, 1988, p. 28).
7659.
On January 8, 1987, Malaya (Exh. “F”) and People’s Tonight (Exh. “K”), reported
Same; Same; Same; Appellant is entitled to benefit from the reduction of the penalty that there were rampant, drug-pushing activities in the vicinity of Garrido and
introduced by RA No. 7659.—The provision of Article 22 of the Revised Penal Zamora Streets in Sta. Ana, Manila, prompting Gen. Alfredo Lim, then WPD
Code, which states that “penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they Superintendent, to reprimand the NCIS office (TSN, December 2, 1987, p. 2).
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.
On January 9, because of the reprimand given by Gen. Lim, Capt. Cablayan WPD headquarters. He claimed that inspite of his protestation that he would like to
instructed Sgt. David to plan a buy-bust operation and to form a six-man team with wait for his lawyer before giving any statement, the police continued their
Pfc. Martin Orolfo, Jr. as the poseur-buyer (TSN, December 2, 1987, p. 6, January interrogation.
11, 1988, 6).
Appellant denied that the twenty-peso bill was given to him by the poseur-buyer. He
At around 4:45 P.M. of the same day, the team, together with their confidential claimed that he was merely forced to sign his name on the photocopy of the twenty-
informant, went to Garrido Street. Upon arriving thereat, they strategically peso bill (Exh. “F”) and that the first time he saw the blue plastic bag containing
positioned themselves. Pfc. Orolfo, Jr. and the confidential informant proceeded to prohibited drugs was when he was at the police station (TSN, June 14, 1988, pp. 1-
the house of appellant located at No. 2267 Garrido Street, where they saw him 11).
standing outside. The confidential informant introduced Pfc. Orolfo, Jr. to appellant
as an interested buyer of marijuana. Appellant asked Pfc. Orolfo, Jr. “Ilan ang To corroborate his story, appellant presented his younger brother, Gerry de Lara.
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 On October 2, 1989, the trial court rendered its decision, disposing as follows:
latter, after placing the money in the right pocket of his pants, went inside his house “WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused guilty beyond
(TSN, January 11, 1988, pp. 7-9). Minutes later, appellant came back and handed reasonable doubt of violation of Sec. 4, Art. II of R.A. 6425 as amended as charged
two foils (Exhs. “D-1-a” and “D-1-b”) wrapped in onion paper (TSN, January 11, in the Information; and this Court hereby sentences the accused to suffer a penalty of
1988, p. 8). It was after he handed the two foils to Pfc. Orolfo, Jr., that he sensed the life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P20,000.00” (Rollo, p. 24).
presence of the police operatives. He then tried to retrieve the two foils but Pfc. Hence, this appeal.
Orolfo, Jr. prevented him from doing so. During the scuffle, one foil was torn.
III
Appellant then ran inside his house with Pfc. Orolfo, Jr. in pursuit. The latter was In his appeal, appellant questions the legality of his arrest and the seizure of
able to subdue appellant. Sgt. David confronted appellant, who admitted that he kept prohibited drugs found inside his house. Furthermore, he claims that he was not
prohibited drugs in his house. Appellant showed the arresting officers a blue plastic assisted by counsel during his custodial interrogation (Rollo, pp. 55-57).
bag with white lining containing prohibited drugs. A receipt of the articles seized As to the legality of appellant’s arrest, we find that the police operatives acted within
(Exh. “F”) was made by Pfc. Orolfo, Jr. (TSN, January 11, 1988, pp. 12-15). the bounds of law.
Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure dealing with
Thereafter, the team, together with appellant, proceeded to the WPD headquarters for warrantless arrests provides:
investigation. Thereat, Sgt. David ordered Pfc. Orolfo, Jr. to commence the
investigation of appellant (TSN, January 11, 1988, pp. 19-21). “Arrest without warrant; when lawful.—A peace officer or a private person may,
without a warrant, arrest a person;
During the investigation, appellant was apprised of his constitutional rights to remain 1 a)
When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
silent and to have the assistance of counsel. When appellant was asked to give a committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
written statement, he refused to do so pending arrival of his lawyer (TSN, January 2 b)
When an offense has in fact just been committed and he has personal
11, 1988, p. 23). knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed
it;
The prohibited drugs seized from appellant were brought to the NBI for chemical xxx xxx xxx”
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. 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
Appellant denied having sold marijuana to anyone and claimed that the arresting provision of law, appellant’s arrest was lawfully effected without need of a warrant
officers merely planted the marijuana on his person. He testified that on January 9, of arrest. “Having caught the appellant in flagrante as a result of the buy-bust
1987, he arrived home from work as a security guard of the Vergara Brothers operation, the policemen were not only authorized but were also under obligation to
Agency at around 3:00 P.M. After changing his clothes, he went out to fetch his son, apprehend the drug pusher even without a warrant of arrest” (People v. Kalubiran,
who was left in the care of a neighbor. Upon returning to his house with his son, he 196 SCRA 644 [1991]; People v. De Los Santos, 200 SCRA 431 [1991]).
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
Appellant, however, asseverates that his arrest was precipitated only by newspaper after the police knew of the said illegal activities. Appellant’s eventual arrest on
publications about the rampant sale of drugs along Garrido and Zamora Streets, Sta. January 9, 1987 was the result of the surveillance conducted and the buy-bust
Ana, Manila (Rollo, p. 53). If appellant implies that the police merely stage-managed operation.
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 The evidence shows that appellant ran inside his house upon sensing the presence of
by the police as early as December 15 and 17, 1986. The newspaper reports the police operatives. The testimony of Pat. Orolfo, Jr., the poseur-buyer, is as
concerning the illegal drug activities came out only on January 8 and 14, 1987, long
follows: FISCAL:
Q: After placing the P20 bill in his right pocket, what did he do? (Exh. “F”), and the Booking and Information Sheet (Exh. “H”).
A: He went to his house and minutes later, he came back, sir. The said documents are inadmissible in evidence for the reason that there was no
Q: When he came back what happened? showing that appellant was then assisted by counsel nor his waiver thereto put into
A: He handed to me two tin foils containing suspected marijuana writing (Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 3[2]).
leaves wrapped in onion paper.
Q: And what happened next when he returned with those items?
A: After he handed to me two foils, he sensed the presence of the 298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
operatives and he tried to retrieve the two foils, sir, People vs. De Lara
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 Be that as it may, the rejection of said evidence would not affect the conviction of
apprehended him while he was inside the house. appellant in view of the abundance of other evidence establishing his guilt. The
Q: After he was subdued by your group, what happened? ruling in People v. Mauyao, 207 SCRA 732 (1992) is apropos:
A: Sgt. David confronted him regarding this case and he voluntarily
admitted that he was still keeping prohibited drugsinside his house. “It bears emphasis, however, that the accused appellant’s conformity to the
Q: What did the group do after he voluntarily admitted that he was keeping questioned documents has not been a factor at all in his conviction. For even if these
prohibited drugs inside his house? documents were disregarded, still the accused-appellant’s guilt has been adequately
A: He pointed inside his house (sic) one plastic bag colored blue with established by other evidence of record. The trial court’s verdict was based on the
white lining containing prohibited drug” evidence of the prosecution not on his signatures on the questioned documents.
(TSN, Janu-ary 11, 1988, pp. 12-14). Accused-appellant’s denial simply can not prevail over the detailed and unshaken
testimonies of the apprehending officers who caught him redhanded selling
marijuana and who have not shown to have any ulterior motive to testify falsely
The policemen’s entry into the house of appellant without a search warrant was in against accused-appellant.”
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, IV
Section 5[a]). 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
We also find as valid the seizure of the plastic bag of prohibited drugs found inside Act of 1972, as amended by B.P. Blg. 179. However, said law was further amended
appellant’s house. by R.A. No. 7659.
The seizure of the plastic bag containing prohibited drugs was the result of Under Section 17 of R.A. No. 7659, the penalty to be imposed for selling,
appellant’s arrest inside his house. A contemporaneous search may be conducted administering, delivering or distributing less than 750 grams of marijuana, shall
upon the person of the arrestee and the immediate vicinity where the arrest was made range from “prision correccional to reclusion perpetua depending upon the
(People v. Castiller, 188 SCRA 376 [1990]). quantity.”
We find to be meritorious appellant’s claim that he was not assisted by counsel Under Section 4 of R.A. No. 7659, the penalty for selling, dispensing, delivering,
during the custodial investigation, specifically when he was forced to sign the transporting or distributing marijuana in excess of 750 grams or more shall be
photocopy of the marked twenty-peso bill (Exh. “E”), Receipt of Property Seized “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
temporal only.
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.
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 is prision mayor.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law to appellant, who was convicted under a
special law (People v. Macantanda, 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.