People vs. Araneta

A buy-bust operation is a valid warrantless arrest and search, and the drugs seized are admissible, where the accused are caught in flagrante delicto selling dangerous drugs; the prosecution must clearly establish the details of the transaction under the objective test, and the accused cannot raise chain-of-custody or Section 21 objections for the first time on appeal.

The original informations were filed under R.A. No. 6425, the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, but were amended after the enactment of R.A. No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The case therefore tested a buy-bust operation and the admissibility of seized drugs under the later statute and the Rules of Court.

Rolando Araneta and Marilou Santos, live-in partners known as Botong and Malou, were the targets of a buy-bust operation mounted by the Pasig City police. Between 3:00 and 3:30 in the morning of July 5, 2002, a confidential informant arrived at the Station Drug Enforcement Unit of the Pasig City Police Station and reported to Officer-in-Charge SPO4 Numeriano de Lara that the couple was peddling illegal drugs at Barangay Putol, Rosario, Pasig City. SPO4 de Lara formed a team composed of SPO2 Dante Zigapan as team leader, PO2 Danilo Damasco, PO1 Orig, and PO1 Bede Montefalcon, briefed them, and had SPO2 Zigapan designate PO2 Damasco as poseur-buyer with a marked P100 bill. The team proceeded in two vehicles and arrived at the target area around 4:10 a.m., positioning 20 to 30 meters from the alley; after the informant confirmed the couple’s presence at ROTC Street, Putol, Barangay Rosario, Pasig City, PO2 Damasco and the informant approached them.

The informant introduced PO2 Damasco to Malou by saying, “I-score itong kaibigan ko. Baka meron ka dyan.” Malou asked, “I-score ka na ba,” and after asking “Magkano,” PO2 Damasco handed her the marked P100 bill. Malou called Botong; when he came out, Malou handed him the marked money, and Botong gave Malou a plastic sachet, which she handed to PO2 Damasco. After examining the sachet, PO2 Damasco gave the pre-arranged signal, and the team rushed to the scene. PO2 Damasco arrested Malou while SPO2 Zigapan arrested Botong. SPO2 Zigapan recovered the marked P100 bill from Botong and, after frisking him, found in his pocket one plastic sachet of what looked like marijuana and eight plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance. PO2 Damasco marked the sachet he received from Malou and the sachets confiscated from Botong with “RAA” and the date July 5, 2002.

At the police station, PO2 Damasco prepared a written request for laboratory examination; PO1 Orig brought the sachets to the crime laboratory. The tests were positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride on the contents of nine sachets and for marijuana on one sachet.

The accused gave a different account. They testified that they were sleeping in their rented apartment in the early morning of July 5 when they were awakened by a loud noise from upstairs. Rolando stood up and tried to go up the stairs but met a man who introduced himself as a policeman, pointed a gun at him, and told him not to move. The man opened the door, and four other policemen entered; one looked inside the comfort room and said, “Nobody is here.” The policemen asked for a certain Teng, but Rolando said he did not know Teng and that no one else was in the house. The police searched the house but found nothing illegal. They were invited to the precinct, where they were told they were being charged with illegal drug activities. PO2 Damasco allegedly demanded ₱20,000 from each of them for their release; when Rolando refused, the cases were filed. Marilou testified similarly, adding that the policeman told her, “Stay there, don’t move,” that five policemen entered and searched, and that at the station PO2 Damasco took something from a drawer and claimed the articles belonged to them, which she denied because nothing was recovered during the search.

Marian Rodriguez testified that in the early morning of July 5, 2002, she saw both accused going out of the alley in ROTC, Rosario, Pasig City, accompanied by five men; they passed in front of her, she hesitated to follow, and she never saw the accused again. The prosecution charged Araneta and Santos with illegal sale under Section 5 in relation to Section 26, Article II, R.A. No. 9165, and Araneta with illegal possession under Section 11, Article II, R.A. No. 9165, after the original informations under R.A. No. 6425 were amended. The RTC found the elements of illegal sale present, gave weight to PO2 Damasco’s testimony, and noted that Araneta had previously been charged in eight drug cases, with one conviction and two dismissals, while the others were pending. The CA found PO2 Damasco’s testimony clear and consistent and found no proof that the police were ill-motivated; it regarded the inconsistencies in the police testimonies as minor.

• Illegal Arrest and Inadmissibility: Accused-appellants argued that the RTC erred in not finding that they were illegally arrested and that, as a result, the sachets of shabu allegedly recovered from them were inadmissible in evidence.
• Credibility and Sufficiency: Accused-appellants argued that the RTC erred in finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt because the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were replete with inconsistencies and contradictions.
• Corpus Delicti and Custody: In their motion for reconsideration, accused-appellants pointed out that the apprehending officers failed to establish that the corpus delicti—the sachets of shabu or marijuana—were the very same ones sold by and seized from them, and that the apprehending team with initial custody failed to make an inventory and photograph the items in their presence.
• On Appeal to the SC: Accused-appellants argued that the prosecution evidence did not establish that the dangerous drugs presented in court were the very same ones allegedly sold by them, and that the police officers failed to strictly abide by the law on proper custody of dangerous drugs seized in the buy-bust operation.

• Lawful Arrest and Seizure: The prosecution maintained that the arrest of the accused and the seizure of the shabu and marijuana were lawful and that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were truthful; absent credible contrary evidence, the police officers are presumed to have regularly performed their official duty.
• Elements of Illegal Sale: The prosecution asserted that all the elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs were present: the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor.
• Timeliness and Chain of Custody: The prosecution argued that the accused cannot raise for the first time on appeal the alleged failure of the law enforcers to comply strictly with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165; at any rate, the chain of custody of the seized items was not broken.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt — Illegal Sale and Possession: Whether accused-appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
• Warrantless Arrest and Search: Whether the warrantless arrest and search during the buy-bust operation were valid and the seized drugs admissible.
• New Issues on Appeal — Corpus Delicti and Section 21: Whether accused-appellants may raise for the first time on appeal the alleged failure to establish corpus delicti and to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt — Illegal Sale and Possession: Yes. The prosecution established the elements of illegal sale—identity of buyer and seller, object and consideration, and delivery upon payment—and Araneta’s possession of the seized marijuana and shabu; PO2 Damasco’s testimony satisfied the objective test, and the denial and frame-up defenses were unsupported.
• Warrantless Arrest and Search: Yes. The accused were caught in flagrante delicto selling dangerous drugs, so the warrantless arrest under Rule 113, Section 5(a) and the incidental search under Rule 126, Section 13 were valid; the seized drugs were not fruit of the poisonous tree.
• New Issues on Appeal — Corpus Delicti and Section 21: No. The corpus delicti and Section 21 inventory/photograph issues were not raised in the appellants’ brief and were presented only in the motion for reconsideration; they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt — Illegal Sale and Possession: The SC applied the rule that factual findings of the trial court, including its calibration of witness testimony and assessment of probative weight, are given high respect unless the trial court ignored, misconstrued, misunderstood, or misinterpreted cogent facts of substance that would alter the outcome. It found no such inculpatory facts. For illegal sale, the prosecution must prove (a) the identity of the buyer and seller, (b) the identity of the object of the sale and the consideration, and (c) the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. PO2 Damasco, the poseur-buyer, narrated the initial contact through the informant, the marked P100 bill, Malou’s receipt of the money, her call to Botong, Botong’s delivery of the sachet to Malou, and Malou’s handing of the sachet to him; his testimony was corroborated by SPO2 Zigapan and SPO4 de Lara. The SC held that this testimony was clear, consistent, and convincing and passed the objective test, which requires the details of the purported transaction to be clearly and adequately shown from initial contact to consummation. The defenses of denial, frame-up, planting of evidence, forcible entry, and extortion were inherently weak; aside from bare allegations, the accused showed no proof that the police did not properly perform their duties or were ill-motivated, so the presumption of regularity stood. The same evidence supported Araneta’s conviction for illegal possession, as the marijuana and eight shabu sachets were recovered from him during the lawful arrest and tested positive.

• Warrantless Arrest and Search: The SC held that no search warrant or warrant of arrest was needed because the buy-bust operation caught the accused in flagrante delicto in possession of, and selling, dangerous drugs to the poseur-buyer. A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment where the idea to commit the crime comes from the accused, and it is a legal and effective method of apprehending drug peddlers when constitutional and legal safeguards are observed. The warrantless arrest was justified under Rule 113, Section 5(a), and the search fell under Rule 126, Section 13 as a search incidental to a lawful arrest. Since the buy-bust operation was legitimate, the search was valid and the seized drugs were not the “fruit of the poisonous tree.” The SC relied on People vs. Villamin for the Rule 113, Section 5(a) point and People vs. Marcelino y Reyes for the search incidental point.

• New Issues on Appeal — Corpus Delicti and Section 21: The SC agreed with the CA that the corpus delicti and Section 21 issues were not raised in the appellants’ brief and appeared only in the motion for reconsideration. It refused to rule on them because doing so would violate basic rules on fair play and due process. The SC stressed that the defense did not contest the admissibility of the seized items during trial: the shabu was marked, examined, cross-examined, and offered as evidence without any manifest objection or hint of lapses in safekeeping affecting admissibility, integrity, and evidentiary value. Citing People vs. Hernandez and People vs. Domado, the SC held that objection to admissibility cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

• Objective Test in Buy-Bust Operations — In buy-bust operations, the details of the purported transaction must be clearly and adequately shown 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 delivery of the illegal drug. The manner of initial contact, offer, payment, and delivery must be strictly scrutinized to ensure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced, while also considering the accused’s predisposition. The SC applied this to PO2 Damasco’s testimony.
• Elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs — The prosecution must establish:
  • the identity of the buyer and seller;
  • the identity of the object of the sale and the consideration; and
  • the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. The SC found all elements proved.
• Buy-Bust as Valid Warrantless Arrest and Search — A buy-bust operation is a legal form of entrapment when due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards is observed. An accused caught in flagrante delicto selling dangerous drugs may be arrested without a warrant under Rule 113, Section 5(a), and searched incident to that lawful arrest under Rule 126, Section 13; the seized drugs are not fruit of the poisonous tree. The SC applied this to uphold the arrest and search.
• Presumption of Regularity in Police Duties — Absent convincing countervailing evidence, members of the buy-bust team are presumed to have performed their duties regularly. Bare allegations of denial, frame-up, planting of evidence, forcible entry, and extortion do not overcome this presumption. The SC applied this because the accused showed no proof of improper performance or ill motive.
• Timeliness of Objection to Admissibility and New Issues on Appeal — An objection to the admissibility of evidence must be raised at trial; it cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Likewise, issues not raised in the appellants’ brief cannot be raised in a motion for reconsideration. The SC applied this to bar the corpus delicti and Section 21 arguments.

• “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 SC uses this to define the objective test in buy-bust operations, requiring the details of the transaction to be clearly and adequately shown from start to finish.
• “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.” — The SC uses this to justify the buy-bust operation as a legal mode of apprehension.
• “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.” — The SC uses this to uphold the warrantless search and the admissibility of the seized drugs.
• “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.” — The SC uses this to bar the new chain-of-custody and Section 21 arguments raised only on appeal.

• People vs. Doria, 301 SCRA 668, 698-699 — Controlling precedent for the objective test in buy-bust operations; the CA applied it and the SC found that PO2 Damasco’s testimony met the standard.
• People vs. Villamin — Followed; a warrantless arrest is justified under Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the Rules of Court when an accused is arrested after selling drugs during a buy-bust operation.
• People vs. Marcelino y Reyes, G.R. No. 189278, July 26, 2010 — Followed; the seizure made by the buy-bust team falls under a search incidental to a lawful arrest under Rule 126, Section 13.
• People vs. Tion y Cabaddu, G.R. No. 172092, December 16, 2009, 608 SCRA 299 — Cited for the objective test in buy-bust operations; also cites People vs. Doria.
• People vs. Miranda, G.R. No. 186419, April 23, 2010 — Cited for the rule that factual findings of the trial court, including its calibration of testimonies and assessment of probative weight, are given high respect if not conclusive effect.
• People vs. Domado, G.R. No. 172971, June 16, 2010 — Followed; objection to the admissibility of evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
• People vs. Hernandez — Followed; the defense must state its objection to the admissibility of evidence during trial, and cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal.

• Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 — Illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The SC applied it to both accused because PO2 Damasco, the poseur-buyer, bought shabu from them in the buy-bust operation.
• Section 26, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 — The information and RTC judgment convicted both accused under Section 5 in relation to Section 26; the SC affirmed the conviction under that charge.
• Section 11, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 — Illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The SC applied it to Araneta because the marijuana sachet and eight shabu sachets were recovered from his pocket during the lawful arrest and tested positive.
• Section 21, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 — Chain of custody, inventory, and photograph requirements. The accused invoked it, but the SC did not rule on compliance because the issue was raised for the first time on appeal.
• Rule 113, Section 5(a), Rules of Court — Warrantless arrest when a person has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. The SC applied it because the accused were caught in flagrante delicto selling drugs.
• Rule 126, Section 13, Rules of Court — Search incidental to a lawful arrest. The SC applied it to uphold the search of Araneta and the seizure of the drugs.