People V Araneta

9/24/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 634
G.R. No. 191064. October 20, 2010.*

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROLANDO
ARANETA y ABELLA @ BOTONG and MARILOU SANTOS y
TANTAY @ MALOU, accused-appellants.
Criminal Law; Dangerous Drugs Act; Illegal Sale of Dangerous

Drugs; Elements.—Doubtless, the prosecution was able to establish all the
necessary elements required in the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous
drugs, namely: 1) the identity of the buyer and seller; 2) the identity of the
object of the sale and the consideration; and 3) the delivery of the thing sold
upon payment.
Same; Same; Same; Buy-Bust Operations; Presumption of Regularity;
Absent any convincing countervailing evidence, the presumption is that the
members of the buy-bust team performed their duties in a regular manner. It
was certainly a job well done.—The Court looked into the accused’s
defense of denial and accusations of frame-up, planting of evidence, forcible
entry and extortion by the police officers but found them inherently weak.
Aside from their bare allegations, the accused had nothing more to show
that the apprehending police officers did not properly perform their duties or
that they had ill motives against them. They failed to substantiate their
argument that they were framed-up for extortion purposes. Absent any
convincing countervailing evidence, the presumption is that the members of
the buy-bust team performed their duties in a regular manner. It was
certainly a job well done. Hence, the Court gives full faith and credit to the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Warrantless Searches and Seizures; In
Flagrante Delicto; A search warrant or warrant of arrest is not needed in a
buy-bust operation where the accused is caught in flagrante delicto in
possession of, and selling, dangerous drugs to the poseur-buyer.—The
Court also holds that the seized items were admissible. A search warrant or
warrant of arrest was not needed because it was a buy-bust operation and the
accused were caught in flagrante delicto in possession of, and selling,
dangerous drugs to the
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
476
476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015eb1f76ce578a90faf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/14
People vs. Araneta
poseur-buyer. It was definitely legal for the buy-bust team to arrest, and
search, them on the spot because a buy-bust operation is a justifiable mode
of apprehending drug pushers. A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment
whereby ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and
capturing the lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan. In this
jurisdiction, the operation is legal and has been proven to be an effective
method of apprehending drug peddlers, provided due regard to
constitutional and legal safeguards is undertaken.
Evidence; Appeals; Objection to the admissibility of evidence cannot
be raised for the first time on appeal.—The Court totally agrees with the
ruling of the CA that the issues on the corpus delicti and the compliance
with Section 21 of RA No. 9165 were issues that were not raised by the
accused in their appellants’ brief, and were only presented in their motion
for reconsideration from the decision of the CA. Hence, the Court cannot
act, much less, rule on said new points. To do so would violate basic rules
on fair play and due process. Thus: We point out the defense’s failure to
contest the admissibility of the seized items as evidence during trial as this
was the initial point in objecting to illegally seized evidence. At the trial, the
seized shabu was duly marked, made the subject of examination and cross-
examination, and eventually offered as evidence, yet at no instance did the
appellant manifest or even hint that there were lapses in the safekeeping of
seized items that affected their admissibility, integrity and evidentiary value.
In People v. Hernandez, we held that objection to the admissibility of
evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires
the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of
objection. Without such objection, he cannot raise the question for the first
time on appeal.
APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Terry Joy P. Barboza-Jalico for accused-appellants.
477
VOL. 634, OCTOBER 20, 2010 477

People vs. Araneta
MENDOZA, J.:
This is an appeal from the August 29, 2008 Decision1 of the
Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02308, which
affirmed the March 12, 2004 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 151, Pasig City (RTC), finding the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt for violating Section 5 and Section 11 of Article II
of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the “Comprehensive

Drugs Act of 2002.”
Criminal informations were filed in the RTC against Rolando
Araneta y Abella a.k.a. “Botong” for Violation of Section 8 and
Section 16 of R.A. No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), as
amended, in addition to the Information filed against him and co-
accused Marilou Santos y Tantay a.k.a. “Malou” for Violation of
Section 15, Article III in relation to Section 21, Article IV of R.A.
6425, as amended. In view of the enactment of R.A. No. 9165
(Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002), the original informations were
amended accordingly. The said Informations read:
Criminal Case No. 11491-D

People vs. Araneta & Santos
(For Violation of Sec. 5 in relation to Sec. 26, Art. II, R.A. 9165)
“On or about July 5, 2002 in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above accused, conspiring and confederating
together and both of them mutually helping and aiding one another, not
being lawfully authorized to sell, dispense, transport or distribute any
dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell,
deliver and give away to PO2 Danilo S. Damasco, a police poseur buyer,
one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline
substance weighing of (sic) eight (8) centigrams (0.08 gram), which was
found
_______________
1 CA Rollo, pp. 2-13. Penned by Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin (now a member of
this Court) with Associate Justice Estella M. Perlas-Bernabe and Associate Justice Ramon M.
Bato, Jr., concurring.
2 Id., at pp. 22-28.
478

People vs. Araneta
positive to the test for metamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in

violation of said law.
Contrary to Law.”
Criminal Case No. 11492-D
People vs. Araneta
(For Violation of Sec. 11, Art. II, R.A. 9165)
“On or about July 5, 2002, in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the accused, not being lawfully authorized to use or
possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have in his possession and under his custody and control one (1)
heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 1.22 grams of dried
marijuana fruiting tops, which was found positive to the test for marijuana, a
dangerous drug, and eight (8) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets

containing white crystalline substance with the following recorded net
weight, to wit:
1) Exh. B1 RAA/070502 — 0.07 gram;
2) Exh. B2 RAA/070502 — 0.10 gram;
3) Exh. B3 RAA/070502 — 0.08 gram;
4) Exh. B4 RAA/070502 — 0.07 gram;
5) Exh. B5 RAA/070502 — 0.08 gram;
6) Exh. B6 RAA/070502 — 0.04 gram;
7) Exh. B7 RAA/070502 — 0.06 gram;
8) Exh. B8 RAA/070502 — 0.09 gram
or having a total weight of 0.59 gram, which were found positive to the
test for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of
the said law.
Contrary to Law.”
The prosecution’s evidence was summarized in the CA decision

as follows:
“On July 5, 2002, between 3:00 and 3:30 o’clock in the morning, a
confidential informant arrived at the Station Drug Enforcement Unit
(SDEU) of the Pasig City Police Station to report to Officer-In-Charge SP04
Numeriano de Lara the alleged peddling of illegal drugs of live-in couple
Botong and Malou, later identified as appellants Rolando Araneta y Abella
and Marilou Santos y Tantay, at
479
VOL. 634, OCTOBER 20, 2010 479

People vs. Araneta
Barangay Putol, Rosario, Pasig City. SPO4 de Lara immediately formed a

team composed of SPO2 Dante Zigapan who acted as the team leader, PO2
Danilo Damasco, PO1 Orig, and PO1 Bede Montefalcon, to confirm the
veracity of the informant’s report and conduct a buy-bust operation. Before
dispatching the team, SPO4 de Lara briefed them as to the alleged illegal
activities of the couple and gave their description.
SPO2 Zigapan designated PO2 Damasco as the poseur-buyer giving him
a marked P100 bill to be used in the entrapment. The team proceeded to the
target area on board two vehicles. SPO2 Zigapan, Montefalcon and the
informant were in one vehicle while PO2 Damasco and PO1 Orig were
together in the other vehicle.
The team arrived at the target place around 4:10 in the morning. They
positioned themselves some 20-30 meters from the alley where appellants
were allegedly staying. SPO2 Zigapan gave instructions to the informant to
locate the appellants. After several minutes, the informant came back and
confirmed the presence of appellants at ROTC Street, Putol, Bgy. Rosario,
Pasig City. Thereafter, the team proceeded to the said location.
PO2 Damasco and the informant went near the appellants who were
standing just outside their house. The informant and appellants exchanged
greetings. After a short conversation, Botong went inside their house. The
informant introduced PO2 Damasco to Malou by saying, “I-score itong
kaibigan ko. Baka meron ka dyan.” Malou then asked PO2 Damasco, “I-
score ka na ba.” After Malou asked PO2 Damasco, “Magkano,” the latter
immediately gave her the marked P100 bill.
Malou called Botong and when the latter came out, Malou handed to him
the marked money. Botong then gave Malou a plastic sachet which she
handed to PO2 Damasco.
After examining the plastic sachet, PO2 Damasco immediately gave the
pre-arranged signal to the other members of the team who thereafter rushed
to the scene. PO2 Damasco arrested Malou while SPO2 Zigapan arrested
Botong.
SPO2 Zigapan recovered from Botong the marked P100 bill and after
frisking him, the police officer found in Botong’s pocket one plastic sachet
of what looked like marijuana and eight plastic sachets containing white
crystalline substance. PO2 Damasco immediately placed “RAA” and the
date July 5, 2002 on the plastic sachet he
480

People vs. Araneta
brought from Malou and the plastic sachets confiscated by SPO2 Zigapan
from Botong.
At the police station, PO2 Damasco prepared the written request for a
laboratory examination of the confiscated plastic sachets. Together with the
request, the plastic sachets were brought by PO1 Orig to the crime
laboratory. The laboratory tests gave a positive result of the presence of
methampethamine hydrochloride or what is locally known as shabu on the
contents of nine (9) sachets and marijuana on one (1) sachet.”
The evidence for the accused was summarized by the CA as

follows:
“Between 3:30 to 4:30 o’clock in the morning of July 5, 2006, accused

Rolando Araneta together with his live-in partner and co-accused Marilou
Santos were sleeping on the ground floor of their rented apartment, when
they were suddenly awakened by a loud noise coming from the upstairs.
Rolando immediately stood up and tried to go up the stairs. That was when
he met a man who introduced himself as a policeman. The man likewise
pointed a gun to him and told him not to move. He was then instructed to sit
down, to which he acceded. Thereafter, the man went near the door of his
house and opened the same. Suddenly, four (4) other policemen went inside.
One of the policemen went inside the comfort room and looked for
somebody. Later, he heard the said policeman utter, “Nobody is here.” One
of the policemen then approached Rolando and asked him the whereabouts
of a certain Teng. Rolando answered that he did not know Teng and that
there was no other person inside the house except for him and his wife
Marilou.
The police operatives searched his house. They however found nothing
illegal inside his house. After the search, the police operatives invited
Rolando and Marilou to come with them to the precinct to answer some
questions. Thereat, the police operatives informed them that they are being
charged for their involvement in illegal drug activities, which they
vehemently denied. PO2 Damasco, however, told them that if they wanted
to be released, Rolando and Marilou must pay P20,000.00 each. When
Rolando declined to give said amount, the police operatives filed the instant
cases against them. (TSN, June 23, 2003, pp. 2-8)
481
VOL. 634, OCTOBER 20, 2010 481

People vs. Araneta
In the early morning of July 5, 2003, accused-appellant Marilou Santos

and her live-in partner Rolando were sleeping when they were awakened by
a noise coming from the second floor of their house. Rolando tried to go
upstairs to find out what happened, but he met a man who instantly poked a
gun at him. Marilou tried to stand up but the policeman told her, “Stay there,
don’t move.” Thereafter the police shoved them near the chair. He also
asked Rolando the whereabouts of Teng but the former answered that
nobody by the name of Teng lived there. While still poking the gun on them,
the policeman opened the door of their house. Five (5) policemen then
entered and conducted a search.
After the search, the policemen brought them to the police station.
Thereat, PO2 Damasco asked them several questions. Moments later, the
policeman got something from the drawer and told them that those articles
belong to them. Marilou denied that the said articles belong to them since
the policemen did not recover anything from them during the search.
Despite her denial, they were still charged with Violations of Sections 15, 16
and 8 of Republic Act 9165. After a while, PO2 Damasco demanded
P20,000.00 from them in exchange for their release. As they were innocent,
Marilou refused to give said amount, prompting the police operatives to
formally charge them. (TSN, July 23, 2003, p. 3)
In the early morning of July 5, 2002, Marian Rodriguez was outside the
alley in ROTC, Rosario, Pasig City when she saw both accused going out of
the alley accompanied by five (5) men. The accused and the five (5) men
passed in front of Marian. She hesitated to follow the group. Since then
Marian never saw the accused again. (TSN, September 10, 2003, pp. 3-4).”
In its March 12, 2004 Decision, the RTC found the accused
guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced them accordingly, as
follows:
“WHEREFORE, the Court renders judgment, as follows:
1) In Criminal Case No. 11491-D, the Court finds accused Rolando
Araneta y Abella @ Botong and accused Marilou Santos y Tantay A Malou
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sec. 5 in relation to Sec.
26, Art. II of R.A. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002, and imposes upon
482

People vs. Araneta
them the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine P500, 000.00
each; and
2) In Criminal Case No. 11492-D (which absorbed Criminal Case No.
11490-D), the Court finds accused Rolando Araneta y Abella @Botong
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of R.A.
9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002, and imposes upon him the penalty of imprisonment of from Twelve
(12) years and One (1) day to Twenty (20) years and to pay a fine of
P300,000.00. Considering that the accused is a detention prisoner, he shall
be credited with the period of his detention during his preventive
imprisonment.
xxx xxx xxx
SO ORDERED.”
The RTC ruled that all the elements for the prosecution of the
illegal sale of dangerous drugs were present during the buy-bust
operation conducted by the police officers. These were: 1) the
identity of the buyer and the seller; 2) the object of the sale and the
consideration; and 3) the delivery of the thing sold and payment
therefor.
Furthermore, the RTC held that the defense of denial, frame-up,
forcible entry, and extortion could not prevail over the positive
identification by the prosecution witnesses. It noted that accused
Rolando Araneta was not candid enough to inform the court that no
less than eight (8) criminal cases were previously filed against him
in different courts for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law.
Nevertheless, out of eight (8) criminal cases filed against him, he
admitted that one resulted in a conviction and two other cases were
dismissed. The other cases were then still pending trial.
Aggrieved, the accused appealed to the CA arguing that: 1) the
RTC erred in not finding that they were illegally arrested and, as
such, the sachets of shabu allegedly recovered from them were
inadmissible in evidence; and 2) the RTC erred in finding them
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged because the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were replete with
inconsistencies and contradictions.
483
VOL. 634, OCTOBER 20, 2010 483

People vs. Araneta
On August 29, 2008, the CA rendered the subject decision

affirming the decision of the RTC.
In arriving at said determination, the CA applied the “objective
test” in buy-bust operations laid down in the case of People v. Doria,
301 SCRA 668, 698-699.3 The CA ruled that the prosecution
evidence met the standard for the “objective test” through the
testimony of its witness, PO2 Danilo Damasco, who acted as
poseur-buyer and who related how the informant introduced him to
the accused; how the transaction was consummated through the
exchange of marked money and the sachet of shabu; and how the
accused was arrested by the entrapment team.
The CA noted that the accused were arrested in flagrante delicto
and that other contraband materials were recovered from them
during the ensuing search. It concluded that the corpus delicti was
duly established.
_______________
3 “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. 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 officer, 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.”
484

People vs. Araneta
Finally, the CA stated that the inconsistencies in the testimonies

of the police officers were minor or inconsequential. The accused
failed to adduce evidence to overthrow the presumption of regularity
in the performance of duty in favor of the police officers. The
accused likewise failed to show proof that the police officers did not
properly perform their jobs or had ill motives against them.
Moreover, their defense of denial and frame-up for extortion
purposes was self-serving, negative evidence that was not entitled to
be given greater weight than the declaration of credible witnesses
who testified on affirmative matters.
In due time, the accused filed a motion for reconsideration
stressing the inadmissibility of evidence due to their illegal arrest,
and the inconsistency in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses.
They also pointed out that the apprehending officers failed to
establish that the corpus delicti (sachets of shabu or marijuana)
were the very same ones sold by and seized from them. Additionally,
they claimed that the apprehending team, who had initial custody
over the confiscated drug items, failed to make an inventory and to
photograph the same in their presence.
On August 24, 2009, the CA issued a resolution4 denying their
motion for reconsideration. The CA ruled, among others, that the
issues on the corpus delicti and the alleged failure of the
apprehending team to make an inventory and to photograph the
shabu and marijuana in the presence of the accused were new issues
not raised in their appeal brief.
In their recourse to this Court, the accused presented only one
Issue
WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS ARE GUILTY
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT FOR VIOLATING
_______________
4 CA Rollo, pp. 176-177.
485
VOL. 634, OCTOBER 20, 2010 485

People vs. Araneta
SECTIONS 5 AND 11 OF ARTICLE II OF R.A. No. 9165,

OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE “COMPREHENSIVE DRUGS ACT
OF 2002.
The accused argue that the evidence adduced by the prosecution

was not able to establish without a doubt, that the dangerous drugs
presented in court were the very same ones allegedly sold by them.
They insist that the police officers failed to strictly abide by the
requirements of the law as regards the proper custody of dangerous
drugs seized in the course of the alleged buy-bust operation.
The prosecution stands firm by its position that the arrest of the
accused and seizure of the shabu and marijuana were lawful and that
the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were truthful. In the
absence of any credible evidence to the contrary, the police officers

are presumed to have regularly performed their official duty. More
importantly, all the elements necessary for the prosecution of the
illegal sale of drugs are present, to wit: 1) the identity of the buyer
and the seller, the object and consideration; and 2) the delivery of
the thing sold and payment therefor.
The prosecution asserts that the accused cannot raise for the first
time on appeal the issue on the alleged failure of the law enforcers to
comply strictly with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. At any
rate, the prosecution believes that it has shown that the chain of
custody of the seized items was not broken.
The Court’s Ruling:
After due consideration, the Court finds the evidence on record
sufficient enough to sustain the verdict of conviction. It is morally
convinced that the accused are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
offense charged against them. The rule is that factual findings of the
trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its
assessment of their probative weight are given high respect if not
conclusive effect,
486

People vs. Araneta
unless the trial court ignored, misconstrued, misunderstood or

misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances of substance, which,
if considered, will alter the outcome of the case.5 In this case, the
CA found no such inculpatory facts and circumstances and this
Court has not stumbled upon any either.
Doubtless, the prosecution was able to establish all the necessary
elements required in the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous
drugs, namely: 1) the identity of the buyer and seller; 2) the identity
of the object of the sale and the consideration; and 3) the delivery of
the thing sold upon payment.
PO2 Danilo Damasco, (PO2 Damasco) the poseur-buyer, clearly
and convincingly narrated in detail the entrapment operation they
had conducted that led to the arrest of the accused and the seizure of
the dangerous drugs. He related on the witness stand that upon
receiving information from a confidential informant about the illegal
sale of dangerous drugs by the accused, they immediately formed an
entrapment team to conduct a buy-bust operation. Upon reaching the
area in the early morning of July 5, 2002, he and the confidential
informant approached the accused. After a brief introduction and
short conversation, accused Botong went inside their house while
accused Malou received the marked money from the poseur-buyer.
Malou then called Botong who thereafter came out of the house.
Malou gave the marked money to Botong who, in turn, gave Malou
a plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance. The plastic

sachet was then handed over to PO2 Damasco who examined it and
immediately gave the pre-arranged signal to arrest the accused.
During the arrest, the marked money was recovered from Rolando
and so were several other plastic sachets containing white crystalline
substances together with a plastic sachet containing marijuana.
Subsequently, the accused were
_______________
5 People v. Darlene Quigod Miranda, G.R. No. 186419, April 23, 2010, 619
SCRA 407.
487
VOL. 634, OCTOBER 20, 2010 487

People vs. Araneta
brought to the police station and the seized items were later brought
to the Police Crime Laboratory Office for examination.
The testimony of PO2 Damasco was corroborated by SPO2
Zipagan, the entrapment team leader, and SPO4 Numeriano De Lara,
the entrapment team organizer.
Contrary to the posture of the accused, the testimony of PO2
Damasco was clear, consistent and convincing. As correctly assessed
by the CA, his testimony passed the “objective test” in buy-bust
operations.
“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. 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 officer, 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.”6 [Emphasis supplied]
The Court looked into the accused’s defense of denial and

accusations of frame-up, planting of evidence, forcible entry and
extortion by the police officers but found them inherently
_______________
6 People v. Joey Tion y Cabaddu, G.R. No. 172092, December 16, 2009, 608
SCRA 299; citing People v. Doria, 361 Phil. 595; 301 SCRA 668 (1999).
488

People vs. Araneta
weak. Aside from their bare allegations, the accused had nothing
more to show that the apprehending police officers did not properly
perform their duties or that they had ill motives against them. They
failed to substantiate their argument that they were framed-up for
extortion purposes.
Absent any convincing countervailing evidence, the presumption
is that the members of the buy-bust team performed their duties in a
regular manner. It was certainly a job well done. Hence, the Court
gives full faith and credit to the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses.
The Court also holds that the seized items were admissible. A
search warrant or warrant of arrest was not needed because it was a
buy-bust operation and the accused were caught in flagrante delicto
in possession of, and selling, dangerous drugs to the poseur-buyer. It
was definitely legal for the buy-bust team to arrest, and search, them
on the spot because a buy-bust operation is a justifiable mode of
apprehending drug pushers. A buy-bust operation is a form of
entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted to for the purpose
of trapping and capturing the lawbreakers in the execution of their
criminal plan. In this jurisdiction, the operation is legal and has been
proven to be an effective method of apprehending drug peddlers,
provided due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards is
undertaken.7
“In People v. Villamin, involving an accused arrested after he sold drugs

during a buy-bust operation, the Court ruled that it was a circumstance
where a warrantless arrest is justified under Rule 113, Sec. 5(a) of the Rules
of Court. The same ruling applies to the instant case. When carried out with
due regard for constitutional and legal safeguards, it is a judicially
sanctioned method of apprehending those involved in illegal drug activities.
It is a valid form of entrapment, as the idea to commit a crime comes not
from the police officers but from the accused himself. The accused is caught
in the act and must be apprehended on the spot. From the very nature of a
_______________
7 Supra note 5.
489
VOL. 634, OCTOBER 20, 2010 489

People vs. Araneta
buy-bust operation, the absence of a warrant does not make the arrest
illegal.
The illegal drugs seized were not the “fruit of the poisonous tree” as the
defense would like this Court to believe. The seizure made by the buy-bust
team falls under a search incidental to a lawful arrest under Rule 126, Sec.
13 of the Rules of Court, which pertinently provides:
A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or
anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission
of an offense without a search warrant.
Since the buy-bust operation was established as legitimate, it follows that
the search was also valid, and a warrant was likewise not needed to conduct
it.”8
It should also be noted that after the RTC rendered a guilty

verdict, the accused filed a motion for reconsideration based on two
(2) grounds, to wit: 1) inadmissibility of the seized items; and 2)
credibility of the prosecution witnesses. In the CA, they reiterated
said grounds. After an unfavorable decision and ruling, the accused
added two (2) new arguments in their motion for reconsideration, to
wit: 1) the apprehending officers failed to establish that the corpus
delicti (sachets of shabu or marijuana) were the very same ones sold
by and seized from them; and 2) the apprehending team who had
initial custody over the confiscated drug items failed to make an
inventory and to photograph the same in their presence.
The Court totally agrees with the ruling of the CA that the issues
on the corpus delicti and the compliance with Section 21 of RA No.
9165 were issues that were not raised by the accused in their
appellants’ brief, and were only presented in their motion for
reconsideration from the decision of the CA.
_______________
8 People v. Elizabeth Marcelino y Reyes, G.R. No. 189278, July 26, 2010, 625
SCRA 632.
490

People vs. Araneta
Hence, the Court cannot act, much less, rule on said new points.
To do so would violate basic rules on fair play and due process.
Thus:
“We point out the defense’s failure to contest the admissibility of the
seized items as evidence during trial as this was the initial point in objecting
to illegally seized evidence. At the trial, the seized shabu was duly marked,
made the subject of examination and cross-examination, and eventually
offered as evidence, yet at no instance did the appellant manifest or even
hint that there were lapses in the safekeeping of seized items that affected
their admissibility, integrity and evidentiary value. In People v. Hernandez,
we held that objection to the admissibility of evidence cannot be raised for
the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence
offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such objection,
he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal.”9
WHEREFORE, the August 29, 2008 Decision of the Court of

Appeals, in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02308, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio (Chairperson), Nachura, Leonardo-De Castro** and

Peralta, JJ., concur.
Judgment affirmed.
Note.—While the presentation of the boodle money, as a general

rule, is not indispensable in the prosecution of a drug case, the
material inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses and the non-presentation of the buy-bust money raise
reasonable doubts on the occurrence of a buy-bust operation.
(People vs. Ong, 544 SCRA 123 [2008])
——o0o——
_______________
9 People v. Sitti Domado, G.R. No. 172971, June 16, 2010, 621 SCRA 73.
** Designated as an additional member in lieu of Justice Roberto A. Abad, per
Special Order No. 905 dated October 5, 2010.
© Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

People V Araneta

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People V Araneta

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/24/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 634

G.R. No. 191064. October 20, 2010.*

Criminal Law; Dangerous Drugs Act; Illegal Sale of Dangerous

476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Araneta

APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.

VOL. 634, OCTOBER 20, 2010 477

of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the “Comprehensive

Criminal Case No. 11491-D

478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

positive to the test for metamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in

dangerous drug, and eight (8) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets

The prosecution’s evidence was summarized in the CA decision

VOL. 634, OCTOBER 20, 2010 479

Barangay Putol, Rosario, Pasig City. SPO4 de Lara immediately formed a

480 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The evidence for the accused was summarized by the CA as

“Between 3:30 to 4:30 o’clock in the morning of July 5, 2006, accused

VOL. 634, OCTOBER 20, 2010 481

In the early morning of July 5, 2003, accused-appellant Marilou Santos

“WHEREFORE, the Court renders judgment, as follows:

482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 634, OCTOBER 20, 2010 483

On August 29, 2008, the CA rendered the subject decision

484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Finally, the CA stated that the inconsistencies in the testimonies

4 CA Rollo, pp. 176-177.

VOL. 634, OCTOBER 20, 2010 485

SECTIONS 5 AND 11 OF ARTICLE II OF R.A. No. 9165,

The accused argue that the evidence adduced by the prosecution

absence of any credible evidence to the contrary, the police ofﬁcers

486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

unless the trial court ignored, misconstrued, misunderstood or

a plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance. The plastic

VOL. 634, OCTOBER 20, 2010 487

“We therefore stress that the “objective” test in buy-bust operations

The Court looked into the accused’s defense of denial and

488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

“In People v. Villamin, involving an accused arrested after he sold drugs

VOL. 634, OCTOBER 20, 2010 489

It should also be noted that after the RTC rendered a guilty

490 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

WHEREFORE, the August 29, 2008 Decision of the Court of

Carpio (Chairperson), Nachura, Leonardo-De Castro** and

Note.—While the presentation of the boodle money, as a general

© Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like