Dimacuha vs. People of the Philippines

A warrantless arrest and the search incidental thereto are lawful when the accused is caught in flagrante delicto during a valid entrapment operation, and the non-presentation of a police informant does not violate the accused's right to confront witnesses because the informant's testimony would be merely corroborative and cumulative of the arresting officers' eyewitness accounts.

Petitioner Ruby Dimacuha was charged under Republic Act No. 6425, the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended, for violations of Section 15 (Sale, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Transportation and Distribution of Regulated Drugs) and Section 16 (Possession or Use of Regulated Drugs) of Article III. The case arose from an entrapment operation conducted by the Marikina Police Station's Intelligence Unit based on information relayed by a confidential informant. The two criminal cases were tried jointly by agreement of the parties.

At around 9:30 a.m. on August 10, 1995, SPO2 Melanio Valeroso, Senior Inspector Ely Pintang, SPO2 Vicente Ostan, and Edilberto Ogto were at the office of the Intelligence Unit of the Marikina Police Station when a confidential informant named Benito Marcelo arrived. Marcelo relayed information about a sale of illegal drugs to take place between 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon that day along the corner of J.M. Basa and Kapwa Streets, Calumpang, Marikina. He described the seller as "more or less 5'4" in height, has a long hair and she will be using a (sky blue colored) car (Toyota Corolla with Plate No. PPZ-254) in delivering the shabu." Senior Inspector Pintang formulated a plan and formed a team composed of SPO2 Valeroso, SPO2 Ostan, Bello Borgueta, Jose Castelo, Jr., and Felipe Evangelista.

At about 11:00 a.m., SPO2 Valeroso and SPO2 Ostan positioned themselves along J.M. Basa Street, fronting a house owned by a certain alias Rudy Kalawang, approximately 5 to 7 meters away. More or less thirty minutes later, two vehicles parked near the house: a blue Toyota car with plate number PPZ-254 and a semi-stainless jeep with plate number DJK-840. The female driver of the car, matching the description given by Marcelo, alighted and approached the driver of the jeep. After a few minutes of transaction, the jeep left. The female driver and her female companion then went to the gate of the house while their male companion stayed at the car. At the gate, Benito Marcelo met them, and the female driver took out from her shoulder bag "one small plastic bag" and gave it to Marcelo. Immediately, SPO2 Valeroso and SPO2 Ostan approached them. Aside from the small plastic bag handed to Marcelo, SPO2 Valeroso also recovered "suspected shabu inside the shoulder bag" of the female driver "inserted inside the cover of a check booklet." The female driver was identified as Ruby Dimacuha; her companions were Juvy Carpio and Michael Mallari. SPO2 Valeroso marked the two transparent plastic bags recovered from Dimacuha by affixing his initials, placing the date, and writing her name. Forensic Chemist Julita T. De Villa examined the specimens and found them positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug.

The defense presented a different account. According to petitioner, at around 10:00 a.m. on August 10, 1995, she received a beeper message from a certain Egay telling her that Juvy Carpio and Michael Mallari were at the house of Rodolfo Enutallio (Mang Rudy) in Basa Street, corner Kapwa Street, Calumpang, Marikina. She proceeded there alone and went to the second floor, where she saw Carpio and Mallari. As she was collecting a ₱24,000.00 debt from Carpio, two men in civilian clothes appeared looking for Mallari. A scuffle for Mallari's belt bag ensued. The men later asked Dimacuha to accompany them to the Marikina Police Station to explain her presence. At the police station, her shoulder bag was inspected, and she was told the contents would be used as "part of the evidence." She disclaimed carrying the drugs and was detained for two days and two nights.

The trial court gave full faith and credit to the prosecution witnesses and applied the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty by public officers conducting anti-narcotics operations. It found that the prosecution convincingly established petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced her accordingly. The CA affirmed the conviction in toto.

• Non-presentation of Informant: Petitioner argued that the non-presentation of Benito Marcelo, the professed police asset, was a denial of her constitutional right to meet and confront her accuser.
• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Petitioner questioned the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and their testimonies, stressing the failure to present the informant.
• Warrantless Arrest: Petitioner contended that her arrest and the search conducted incidental to it were illegal, as the surrounding circumstances were not within the purview of allowable warrantless arrests under Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Court.
• Admissibility of Evidence: Petitioner argued that the alleged pieces of prohibited stuff presented in Criminal Case No. 95-63-D-MK, allegedly obtained as an incident to a warrantless arrest, were inadmissible in evidence.
• Equipoise Rule: Petitioner contended that the CA committed reversible error in failing to adopt and apply the equipoise rule.
• No Entrapment: Petitioner argued that no entrapment (buy-bust) operation ever took place because no payment was made.
• Alibi: Petitioner invoked the defense of alibi, claiming that Carpio and Mallari were already at Mang Rudy's residence when she arrived, and that she was merely collecting a debt when the arrest occurred.

• Regularity of Police Duty: The prosecution relied on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by police officers conducting anti-narcotics operations, there being no evidence of improper motive to falsely testify against the accused.
• Validity of Entrapment: The prosecution established that an honest-to-goodness entrapment operation was conducted, with SPO2 Valeroso and SPO2 Ostan positively testifying that they witnessed petitioner hand the shabu to the informant and subsequently seize another sachet from her bag.

• Credibility of Witnesses: Whether the CA committed reversible error in affirming the conviction despite petitioner's challenge to the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and their testimonies.
• Non-presentation of Informant: Whether the non-presentation of Benito Marcelo, the professed police asset, was a denial of petitioner's right to confront her accuser.
• Warrantless Arrest: Whether the warrantless arrest of petitioner was justified under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.
• Admissibility of Seized Evidence: Whether the alleged pieces of prohibited drugs obtained as an incident to the warrantless arrest are admissible in evidence.
• Entrapment Without Payment: Whether the absence of payment negates the existence of an entrapment operation for the crime of distribution of regulated drugs.
• Applicable Penalty: Whether the penalty imposed by the trial court, as affirmed by the CA, was correct.

• Credibility of Witnesses: No. The trial court's findings on the credibility of prosecution witnesses, supported by the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, prevailed over petitioner's self-serving and uncorroborated claim of having been framed.
• Non-presentation of Informant: No. The right to confront witnesses is not affected by the failure to present the informant, as the matter of presentation of witnesses is the prosecutor's discretion, and the informant's testimony would have been merely corroborative and cumulative.
• Warrantless Arrest: Yes. The arrest was lawful as an arrest in flagrante delicto, petitioner having been caught in the act of delivering 1.15 grams and in actual possession of another 10.78 grams of shabu during a valid entrapment operation.
• Admissibility of Seized Evidence: Yes. The subsequent seizure of the bag of shabu inserted inside the cover of her checkbook was justified as a search incidental to a lawful arrest, and the seized drug was admissible as the fruit of the crime.
• Entrapment Without Payment: No. In the crime of distribution of prohibited drugs, the payment of any consideration is immaterial; the mere act of distributing the prohibited drug to others is in itself a punishable offense.
• Applicable Penalty: Yes. The penalty of 6 months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to 2 years, 4 months and 1 day of prision correccional, as maximum, was correctly imposed under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and RA No. 9165 could not be given retroactive application as it was not favorable to the petitioner.

• Credibility of Witnesses: The Court applied the settled rule that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence should be given to the narration of the incident by prosecution witnesses, especially police officers presumed to have performed their duties regularly, absent evidence to the contrary. The Court found nothing in the record to justify departing from this rule regarding the testimonies of SPO2 Valeroso and SPO2 Ostan, as there was no evidence of any improper motive on their part. The prosecution's evidence established an honest-to-goodness entrapment operation, with the officers positively testifying that from a distance of 5 to 7 meters, they saw petitioner take out a small plastic sachet from her brown shoulder bag and hand it to the informant, after which a subsequent search yielded another sachet inserted inside her checkbook cover. The physical evidence, Chemistry Report No. D-578-95, corroborated the collective testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.

• Non-presentation of Informant: The Court held that the right to confront witnesses is not affected by the prosecution's failure to present the informant. The presentation of witnesses is a matter of prosecutorial discretion, and in illegal drugs cases, the presentation of an informant is not essential for conviction nor indispensable for a successful prosecution because his testimony would be merely corroborative and cumulative. Informants are usually not presented in court because of the need to hide their identity and preserve their invaluable service to the police. The Court cited the exception: when the accused vehemently denies selling prohibited drugs and there are material inconsistencies in the testimonies of the arresting officers, or there are reasons to believe the officers had motives to falsely testify, or only the informant was the poseur-buyer who actually witnessed the entire transaction. None of these exceptions applied here, as SPO2 Valeroso and SPO2 Ostan directly testified regarding the entrapment operation and witnessed the whole transaction.

• Warrantless Arrest: The Court recognized that the interdiction against warrantless searches and seizures is not absolute, citing permissible instances: (1) search of moving vehicles; (2) seizure in plain view; (3) customs searches; (4) waiver or consented searches; (5) stop and frisk situations (Terry search); and (6) search incidental to a lawful arrest. The Rules of Court likewise recognizes permissible warrantless arrests: (1) arrest in flagrante delicto; (2) arrest effected in hot pursuit; and (3) arrest of escaped prisoners. Here, petitioner was caught in flagrante delicto while in the act of delivering 1.15 grams and in actual possession of another 10.78 grams of shabu as a result of the entrapment operation. Her arrest was therefore lawful, and the subsequent seizure of the bag of shabu inserted inside the cover of her checkbook was justified, as an officer making an arrest may take from the person arrested any property found upon his person in order to find and seize things connected with the crime.

• Entrapment Without Payment: The Court held that in the crime of distribution of prohibited drugs, the payment of any consideration is immaterial. The law defines "deliver" as a person's act of knowingly passing a dangerous drug to another personally or otherwise, and by any manner with or without consideration. Thus, the mere act of distributing the prohibited drug to others is in itself a punishable offense.

• Defense of Alibi: The Court rejected petitioner's defense of alibi, noting that she should have presented her friends Juvy Carpio and Michael Mallari to corroborate her tale but did not. The Court reiterated that alibi is the weakest of all defenses and the easiest to concoct, and in drug cases, alibi is viewed with disfavor. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that he was not at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission and that it was physically impossible for him to be there. The Court noted that were she not at the house of Mang Rudy at the time of the entrapment, she would not have been arrested and her bag searched.

• Applicable Penalty: The Court found the penalty imposed by the trial court, as affirmed by the CA, to be correct. Although RA No. 9165 increased the penalties for illegal possession and sale/delivery of dangerous drugs, it was not favorable to the petitioner and could not be given retroactive application. Applying the ruling in People vs. Tira, the Court noted that for possession of a regulated drug less than 200 grams, the imposable penalty ranges from prision correccional to reclusion perpetua based on quantity. For less than one gram to 49.25 grams, the penalty is prision correccional. There being neither generic mitigating nor aggravating circumstance, the penalty of prision correccional was imposed in its medium period (2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months). Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum period was within the range of the penalty next lower in degree, arresto mayor (1 month and 1 day to 6 months). Thus, the sentence of 6 months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to 2 years, 4 months and 1 day of prision correccional, as maximum, was correct.

• In flagrante delicto arrest — A warrantless arrest is lawful when the accused is caught in the act of committing an offense. The Court applied this doctrine to uphold the arrest of petitioner, who was caught in the act of delivering shabu to the police informant during an entrapment operation, making the subsequent search incidental to the arrest valid.

• Search incidental to a lawful arrest — An officer making an arrest may take from the person arrested any property found upon his person in order to find and seize things connected with the crime. The Court applied this doctrine to justify the seizure of the shabu found inside petitioner's shoulder bag, inserted inside the cover of her checkbook.

• Presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty — Police officers conducting anti-narcotics operations are presumed to have performed their duties regularly, absent evidence of improper motive to falsely testify against the accused. The Court applied this presumption in favor of the prosecution witnesses, finding no evidence of any improper motive on their part.

• Non-presentation of police informant — In illegal drugs cases, the presentation of an informant is not essential for conviction nor indispensable for a successful prosecution because his testimony would be merely corroborative and cumulative. The Court applied this doctrine to reject petitioner's claim that her right to confront witnesses was violated, noting that the informant's testimony would have been merely corroborative of the arresting officers' eyewitness accounts.

• Alibi as the weakest defense — Alibi is the weakest of all defenses and the easiest to concoct, and in drug cases, it is viewed with disfavor. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that he was not at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission and that it was physically impossible for him to be there. The Court applied this doctrine to reject petitioner's defense, noting that she failed to present corroborating witnesses and that her presence at the scene was established.

• Prospective application of penal laws — A penal law that is not favorable to the accused cannot be given retroactive application. The Court applied this principle in declining to apply RA No. 9165, which increased the penalties for drug offenses, as it was not favorable to the petitioner.

• "The right of the petitioner to confront the witnesses against her is not affected by the failure of the prosecution to present the informant. The matter of presentation of witnesses is not for accused nor even for the trial court to decide. Discretion belongs to the prosecutor as to how the State should present its case." — This passage establishes the prosecutorial discretion in presenting witnesses and clarifies that the right to confrontation is not violated by the non-presentation of a police informant.

• "Here, the petitioner was caught in flagrante delicto while in the act of delivering 1.15 grams and in actual possession of another 10.78 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) as a result of an entrapment operation conducted by the police on the basis of information received from Benito Marcelo regarding petitioner's illegal drug trade. Petitioner's arrest, therefore, was lawful and the subsequent seizure of a bag of shabu inserted inside the cover of her checkbook was justified and legal in light of the prevailing rule that an officer making an arrest may take from the person arrested any property found upon his person in order to find and seize things connected with the crime." — This passage articulates the Court's reasoning for upholding the warrantless arrest and the incidental search, applying the in flagrante delicto doctrine.

• "In the crime of distribution of prohibited drugs, the payment of any consideration is immaterial. The mere act of distributing the prohibited drug to others is in itself a punishable offense." — This passage clarifies that payment is not an element of the crime of distribution of regulated drugs, rejecting petitioner's argument that no entrapment occurred because no payment was made.

• "The consistent ruling of this Court is that alibi is the weakest of all defenses and the easiest to concoct. So it is that in drug cases, the Court views alibi with disfavor. For alibi to prosper, the accused has the burden of proving that he was not at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission and that it was physically impossible for him to be there." — This passage states the canonical formulation of the alibi defense and its requisites, which the Court applied to reject petitioner's defense.

• People vs. Chua Ho San, G.R. No. 128222, June 17, 1999, 308 SCRA 432 — Cited as controlling authority enumerating the permissible instances of warrantless searches and seizures, including search incidental to a lawful arrest.
• People vs. Tira, G.R. No. 139615, May 28, 2004, 430 SCRA 134 — Followed in determining the proper penalty for possession of regulated drugs based on quantity, establishing the graduated penalty scale for possession of less than 200 grams of shabu.
• People vs. Isnani, G.R. No. 133006, June 9, 2004, 431 SCRA 439 — Followed in applying the same penalty ruling for illegal sale of shabu.
• People vs. Doria, G.R. No. 125299, January 22, 1999, 301 SCRA 668 — Cited for the rule that the testimony of an informant may be dispensed with as it will merely be corroborative of the apprehending officers' eyewitness accounts.
• People vs. Chua Uy, 384 Phil. 70 (2000) — Cited for the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by police officers in anti-narcotics operations.
• People vs. Corpuz, G.R. No. 148919, December 17, 2002, 442 SCRA 405 — Cited for the presumption of regularity and the conclusion that no improper motive exists absent persuasive evidence to the contrary.
• People vs. Rodriguez, 429 Phil. 359 (2002) — Cited for the proposition that payment of consideration is immaterial in the crime of distribution of prohibited drugs.

• Section 15, Article III, RA No. 6425 — The provision penalizing the sale, administration, dispensation, delivery, transportation, and distribution of regulated drugs. The Court applied this provision in affirming petitioner's conviction for delivering 1.15 grams of shabu to the police informant.
• Section 16, Article III, RA No. 6425 — The provision penalizing the possession or use of regulated drugs without the corresponding license or prescription. The Court applied this provision in affirming petitioner's conviction for possessing 10.78 grams and 1.15 grams of shabu.
• Section 2(f), Article 1, RA No. 6425 — The definitional provision defining "deliver" as a person's act of knowingly passing a dangerous drug to another personally or otherwise, and by any manner with or without consideration. The Court applied this definition in rejecting petitioner's argument that no entrapment occurred because no payment was made.
• Section 5, Rule 113, Rules of Court — The provision enumerating permissible warrantless arrests, including arrest in flagrante delicto. The Court applied this provision in upholding the validity of petitioner's warrantless arrest.
• Article III, Section 2, 1987 Constitution — The provision protecting the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court recognized this right but found that the warrantless search and seizure in this case fell within permissible exceptions.
• Article III, Section 3, paragraph 2, 1987 Constitution — The exclusionary rule providing that any evidence obtained in violation of the right against unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. The Court acknowledged this rule but found the seized evidence admissible as the fruit of a lawful arrest.
• RA No. 9165 — The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, which increased penalties for drug offenses. The Court declined to apply it retroactively as it was not favorable to the petitioner.

Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno (Chairperson), Associate Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, Associate Justice Renato C. Corona, and Associate Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna (on official leave) concurred in the decision.

N/A — No dissenting opinions were noted in the provided case text.