People v. de Lara
People v. de Lara
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
292
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175b2a7a12223891cf6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/10
11/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 236
the arrest was made.—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.
Same; Same; Same; Constitutional Law; The 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.—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.
Same; Same; Penalty; Section 4, Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act
of 1972 as amended by B.P. Blg. 179 was further amended by R.A. No.
7659.—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.
Same; Same; Same; Appellant is entitled to benefit from the reduction
of the penalty introduced by RA No. 7659.—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.
QUIASON, J.:
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175b2a7a12223891cf6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/10
11/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 236
II
294
6).
At around 4:45 P.M. of the same day, the team, together with
their confidential informant, went to Garrido Street. Upon arriving
thereat, 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.
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175b2a7a12223891cf6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/10
11/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 236
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.
295
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 Procedure
dealing with warrantless arrests provides:
296
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175b2a7a12223891cf6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/10
11/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 236
“FISCAL:
Q After placing the P20 bill in his right pocket, what did he do?
A He went to his house and minutes later, he came back, sir.
Q When he came back what happened?
297
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175b2a7a12223891cf6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/10
11/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 236
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, Janu-ary 11,
1988, pp. 12-14).
298
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 redhanded selling marijuana and who have not
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175b2a7a12223891cf6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/10
11/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 236
IV
299
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175b2a7a12223891cf6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/10
11/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 236
300
——o0o——
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175b2a7a12223891cf6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/10