People VS Bolado and Gaddao (Crim - Pro)

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.People vs Doria
FACTS:
In 1995, members of the PNP Narcotics Command (Narcom), received information from 2civilian
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. The Narcom agents formed
TeamAlpha they designated PO3 Manlangit as the poseur-buyer. At 7:20 a.m., “Jun” appeared. PO3
Manlangit handed “Jun” the marked bills worth P1,600.00.The exchange of money for a marijuana was
completed. “Jun” asked PO3 to wait for an hour while he will get the mariujuana from his associate.
After a while, when “Jun” was about to give the marijuana,PO3 Manlangit forthwith arrested “Jun”.
They frisked “Jun” but did not find the marked bills on him. Upon inquiry, “Jun” left the money to his
associate “Neneth”. The team went to the house and they noticed a box under the dining table.
Suspicion aroused, PO3 Manlangit entered “Neneth’s” house and took hold of the box. He peeked
inside the box and found that it contained 10 bricks of what appeared to be dried marijuana leaves.
Simultaneous with the box’s discovery, SPO1 Badua recovered the marked bills from “Neneth.” They
arrested “Neneth and Jun”.They learned that “Jun” is Florencio Doria y Bolado while “Neneth” is
Violeta Gaddao y Catama. Both of them were charged with violation of Section 4, in relation to Section
21 of the Dangerous Drugs Actof 1972. The trial court found the existence of an “organized/syndicated
crime group” and sentenced both to death and pay a fine of P500,000.00 each. Hence, the automatic
review.
In a number of cases, the Court differentiated entrapment and instigation:
People vs Galicia - 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 officer for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreaker in the execution of his criminal
plan.
People v. Tan Tiong - the Court of Appeals further declared that "entrapment is no bar to the
prosecution and conviction of the lawbreaker."
People v. Tiu Ua - Entrapment is not contrary to public policy. It is instigation that is deemed contrary
to public policy and illegal.

The test used in courts is a combination of objective (focused on acts of law enforcer) and subjective
(focused on predisposition of accused to commit the offense).
Whether or not the warrantless arrest of Doria was lawful?
YES.
Appellant was caught in the act of committing an offense. When an accused is apprehended in flagrante
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.
Whether or not warrantless arrest and search of her person and residence was lawful?
NO.
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 flee from the policemen to justify
her arrest in "hot pursuit." Neither could the arrest of appellant Gaddao be justified under the second
instance of Rule 113. "Personal knowledge" of facts in arrests without warrant under Section 5 (b) of
Rule 113 must be basedupon "probable cause" which means an "actual belief or reasonable grounds of
suspicion." 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.
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. The fact that the box containing about six (6) kilos of marijuana[137] was
found in the house of accused-appellant Gaddao does not justify a finding that she herself is guilty of
the crime charged.
Ruling: Doria sentenced to reclusion perpetua; Gaddao is acquitted.
NOTES:
Objects falling in plain view of an officer 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. The "plain view"
doctrine applies when the following requisites concur:

(a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification 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 officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime,
contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.

People VS Bolado and Gaddao (Crim - Pro)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People VS Bolado and Gaddao (Crim - Pro)

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

People VS Bolado and Gaddao (Crim - Pro)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

FLORENCIO DORIA y BOLADO, and VIOLETA GADDAO y CATAMA@

In a number of cases, the Court differentiated entrapment and instigation:

prosecution and conviction of the lawbreaker."

to public policy and illegal.

(focused on predisposition of accused to commit the offense).

Whether or not the warrantless arrest of Doria was lawful?

the crime charged.

Ruling: Doria sentenced to reclusion perpetua; Gaddao is acquitted.

doctrine applies when the following requisites concur:

is in a position from which he can view a particular area;

(b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent;

contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.

You might also like