Professional Documents
Culture Documents
People V Araneta
People V Araneta
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
476
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.
477
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
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015eb1f76ce578a90faf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/14
9/24/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 634
_______________
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
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015eb1f76ce578a90faf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/14
9/24/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 634
“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
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015eb1f76ce578a90faf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/14
9/24/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 634
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
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.”
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015eb1f76ce578a90faf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/14
9/24/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 634
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
In its March 12, 2004 Decision, the RTC found the accused
guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced them accordingly, as
follows:
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015eb1f76ce578a90faf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/14
9/24/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 634
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
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
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015eb1f76ce578a90faf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/14
9/24/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 634
_______________
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
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015eb1f76ce578a90faf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/14
9/24/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 634
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
_______________
485
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015eb1f76ce578a90faf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/14
9/24/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 634
486
_______________
5 People v. Darlene Quigod Miranda, G.R. No. 186419, April 23, 2010, 619
SCRA 407.
487
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.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015eb1f76ce578a90faf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/14
9/24/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 634
_______________
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
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
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015eb1f76ce578a90faf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/14
9/24/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 634
_______________
7 Supra note 5.
489
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
_______________
8 People v. Elizabeth Marcelino y Reyes, G.R. No. 189278, July 26, 2010, 625
SCRA 632.
490
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015eb1f76ce578a90faf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/14
9/24/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 634
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
Judgment affirmed.
_______________
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.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015eb1f76ce578a90faf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/14