People vs. Aspiras

The plain view doctrine does not justify the warrantless seizure of marijuana bricks wrapped in a plastic bag and hidden under a table, because the incriminating nature of the contents is not immediately apparent; evidence so seized is inadmissible. Where the object in plain view is merely an opaque container whose contents cannot be discerned without further search, the seizure fails the requirement that the evidence be immediately apparent.

Rolando Aspiras and Rodolfo "Aha" San Lorenzo were residents of J. Puyat Compound, Tambo, Parañaque, Metro Manila, and were jointly charged with violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act arising from a single police operation. The governing statute, R.A. 6425, as amended by R.A. 7659, penalizes the sale and possession of prohibited drugs and calibrates the applicable penalties according to the quantity of the drug involved. The cases against the two accused were consolidated and jointly tried before the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque, Branch 259.

On December 26, 1994, Sr. Inspector Valdez of the Parañaque Philippine National Police Drug Enforcement Unit received a telephone call informing him that a certain alias Rolly, later identified as Rolando Aspiras of Tambo, Parañaque, was peddling prohibited drugs. Acting on the information, Valdez constituted PO3 Jose Soreta and Police Aides Abelardo Soto and Jerry Sabino to conduct a surveillance operation on Aspiras. Surveillance was conducted that same day at J. Puyat Compound, where the suspect's house was located; the team then returned to the police station and planned a buy-bust operation.

On December 27, 1994, at around seven in the evening, P/A Jerry Sabino acted as the poseur-buyer while PO3 Soreta, P/A Soto, and Crisanto Cruz positioned themselves approximately ten meters away from Aspiras' house. When Sabino called for Aspiras, Rodolfo "Aha" San Lorenzo came out and inquired what he wanted. Sabino related that he wanted to score or buy marijuana for P50.00 and handed San Lorenzo the marked five pieces of ten-peso bills. Upon receipt of the amount, San Lorenzo entered Aspiras' house. Soon after, Aspiras came out and asked Sabino if he was the one who wanted to score; when Sabino confirmed, Aspiras handed him five pieces of aluminum foil. Upon verifying the contents as marijuana, Sabino signaled his companions to make the arrest. When Aspiras saw the rest of Sabino's companions, he rushed inside his house and the police team sought after him. The marked money was recovered from Aspiras, while PO3 Soreta seized two bricks of marijuana flower tops wrapped in a plastic bag under a table. Aspiras and San Lorenzo were then brought to the headquarters, and the marijuana flower tops were sent to the NBI for examination.

The defense told an entirely different story. Aspiras testified that on December 27, 1994, at around five in the afternoon, he was in his house at 16th Street, Puyat Compound, Tambo, Parañaque with his wife and five children. At around seven in the evening, PO3 Soreta, wearing a police uniform, and his three companions in civilian clothes forcibly entered his house while one stayed outside. At gunpoint, he was ordered to stand and was handcuffed by Soreta. He asked what the problem was, and the police asked him where he hid the shabu; upon his response that there was none, the police began searching but nothing was found. Soreta instructed him to bow his head. Thereafter, P/A Sabino proceeded to the kitchen, and Aspiras noticed something bulging in Sabino's jacket as the latter approached the kitchen. After less than two minutes, Sabino came out and uttered, "Sir, meron pa lang itinatagong marijuana dito." Aspiras denied ownership of the marijuana and was informed that the marijuana bricks were taken from the ceiling. He was then brought out of his house and walked more or less twenty meters toward San Lorenzo's residence, where he saw San Lorenzo in handcuffs; both were brought to the Coastal Police Headquarters.

For his part, San Lorenzo testified that on December 27, 1994, at around five to six in the afternoon, while resting in his house with his wife and children in Puyat Compound, he heard someone knocking at his door. When he opened it, he saw P/A Soto, who invited him to go to the police station at Coastal. Upon inquiring as to the reason, P/A Soto asked if he was selling shabu; when he replied that he had no knowledge thereof, P/A Soto pushed him inside his house and PO3 Soreta and P/A Sabino immediately followed and forced their way in and started to search the house. While the search ensued, P/A Sabino asked San Lorenzo about his source of the prohibited drugs, and San Lorenzo replied that he could not show any shabu. He was thereafter brought out of his house, where he saw Aspiras in handcuffs, and both were brought to the Coastal police headquarters and detained. The following day, both were investigated by Chief Inspector Valdez, and charges for violation of R.A. 6425, as amended, were filed against them.

The trial court found the version offered by the defense totally without merit and unworthy of belief, and held that the prosecution had established that the buy-bust team was able to buy from Aspiras five pieces of aluminum foils containing dried marijuana flower tops worth P50.00. It noted that there was no improper motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses to testify against Aspiras, and that the testimonies of the apprehending officers who caught him red-handed should be given full faith and credence. It further found that the two bricks of marijuana flower tops, with a total weight of 1.440 kilograms, were recovered under a table, wrapped in a plastic bag.

• Non-existence of the Buy-Bust Operation: Accused-appellant questioned the existence of the buy-bust operation, contending that no such transaction took place.
• Ill Motive and Planted Evidence: Accused-appellant imputed ill motive on the police officers and asserted that the evidence against him was planted.
• Credibility of the Defense: Accused-appellant assigned as error the trial court's failure to give credence to the defense he put up.
• Improper Conviction for Possession: Accused-appellant assigned as error his conviction for violation of Section 8, Article II of R.A. 6425, as amended.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Illegal Sale: Whether the evidence presented before the trial court was sufficient to warrant accused-appellant's conviction for the illegal sale of marijuana under Section 4, Article II of R.A. 6425, as amended.
• Propriety of Conviction for Illegal Possession: Whether accused-appellant may be convicted for illegal possession under Section 8, Article II of R.A. 6425, as amended, given the seizure of the two marijuana bricks from under a table wrapped in a plastic bag.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Illegal Sale: Yes. The illegal sale was consummated when accused-appellant handed the five marijuana aluminum foils to the poseur-buyer, and the testimonies of the apprehending officers sufficiently established the transaction.
• Propriety of Conviction for Illegal Possession: No. The two marijuana bricks were inadmissible under the plain view doctrine, their incriminating nature not being immediately apparent from the plastic bag in which they were wrapped, so acquittal on the possession charge was called for.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Illegal Sale: A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment employed by peace officers to catch a malefactor in flagrante delicto, in which the idea to commit the crime originates from the accused and no one induces or prods him into committing the offense. The testimonies of P/A Sabino and PO3 Soreta sufficiently established how the crime was committed, and the fact that accused-appellant handed to P/A Sabino the five marijuana aluminum foils worth P50.00 constituted the illegal sale of marijuana. There is no fixed procedure for conducting a buy-bust operation, and no rule of law requires the simultaneous exchange of the marked money and the prohibited drug between the poseur-buyer and the seller; the crime of illegal sale is committed as soon as the sale transaction is consummated, whether payment precedes or follows delivery of the drug sold. The trial court found the defense version totally without merit and unworthy of belief, and correctly pointed out that there was no improper motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses; the testimonies of the apprehending officers who caught accused-appellant red-handed were entitled to full faith and credence, they being presumed to be in the regular performance of their official duties. Because the assignment of errors focused on the credibility of witnesses, and the findings of the trial court on credibility are entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing that it overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight or substance, and no such oversight appearing, the conviction for illegal sale was warranted.
• Propriety of Conviction for Illegal Possession: While the conviction for selling prohibited drugs was warranted, accused-appellant should be liable only for that crime, and his acquittal for possessing the two bricks of marijuana flower tops was called for. The police officers' justification for the seizure rested on the theory that the intrusion and search were pursuant to accused-appellant's lawful arrest after selling marijuana to a member of the buy-bust team, but a search incident to a lawful arrest is limited to the person of the one arrested and the premises within his immediate control. Under the plain view doctrine, unlawful objects within the plain view of an officer who has the right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented in evidence, but the seizure must comply with the following elements: (a) a prior valid intrusion based on a valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties; (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they are; (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and (d) plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search. The record showed that the two bricks of marijuana flower tops, with a total weight of 1.440 kilograms, were recovered under a table, wrapped in a plastic bag. Following the ruling in People vs. Salanguit, where marijuana wrapped in newsprint was declared inadmissible, and the prior ruling rendering inadmissible marijuana seized because it was contained in a plastic bag that gave no indication of its contents, the incriminating nature of the contents of the plastic bag was not immediately apparent from the plain view of the object; the prosecution failed to show whether or not the plastic bag was transparent such that its plain view would readily disclose that its contents were marijuana. Because the inculpatory facts and circumstances were capable of two or more explanations, one consistent with innocence and the other with guilt, the evidence did not fulfill the test of moral certainty and was insufficient to support a conviction. Accordingly, the two bricks of marijuana were inadmissible in evidence against accused-appellant, who must be held liable only for the sale of marijuana.

• Plain View Doctrine — Unlawful objects within the plain view of an officer who has the right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented in evidence. The Court enumerated the requisites for a valid seizure under this doctrine: (a) a prior valid intrusion based on a valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties; (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they are; (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and (d) plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search. The Court applied the doctrine and held that the two marijuana bricks wrapped in a plastic bag and hidden under a table did not satisfy the "immediately apparent" requirement, because the plastic bag gave no indication of its contents and the prosecution failed to show that the bag was transparent; the seizure was therefore invalid and the evidence inadmissible.
• Buy-Bust Operation (Entrapment) — A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment employed by peace officers to catch a malefactor in flagrante delicto, defined as the employment of such ways and means for the purpose of trapping or capturing a lawbreaker. The idea to commit the crime originates from the accused; nobody induces or prods him into committing the offense. The Court relied on this doctrine to uphold the conviction for illegal sale, finding that the operation was formed precisely to test the veracity of the tip and to apprehend the perpetrator.
• Consummation of Illegal Sale — The crime of illegal sale is committed as soon as the sale transaction is consummated, whether payment precedes or follows delivery of the drug sold. No fixed procedure governs a buy-bust operation, and no rule of law requires the simultaneous exchange of the marked money and the prohibited drug between the poseur-buyer and the seller. The Court applied this rule to hold that the handing of the five marijuana aluminum foils to the poseur-buyer constituted the illegal sale.
• Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest — A search incident to a lawful arrest is limited to the person of the one arrested and the premises within his immediate control. The Court invoked this limitation in rejecting the police officers' justification for the seizure of the marijuana bricks found under a table.
• Credibility of Witnesses — Findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal absent any clear showing that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight or substance which could have affected the result of the case. The Court found no such oversight and sustained the trial court's crediting of the apprehending officers' testimonies.
• Reasonable Doubt / Moral Certainty — If the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction. The Court applied this principle to conclude that the possession charge could not be sustained.

• "A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment employed by peace officers to catch a malefactor in flagrante delicto. It has been defined as the employment of such ways and means for the purpose of trapping or capturing a lawbreaker. The idea to commit the crime originates from the accused; nobody induces or prods him into committing the offense." — This passage states the Court's canonical definition of a buy-bust operation and distinguishes entrapment from inducement, anchoring the affirmance of the illegal sale conviction.
• "The well-entrenched principle is that the crime of illegal sale is committed as soon as the sale transaction is consummated, whether payment precedes or follows delivery of the drug sold." — This passage articulates the rule on the consummation of the crime of illegal sale, which the Court applied to hold that the handing of the marijuana foils completed the offense.
• "Nonetheless, the seizure of evidence in plain view must comply with the following elements: (a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties; (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they are; (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and (d) plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search." — This passage sets out the four requisites of the plain view doctrine, the formulation the Court applied to invalidate the seizure of the marijuana bricks.
• "If the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction." — This passage states the reasonable-doubt standard the Court invoked to justify acquittal on the possession charge.

• People vs. Salanguit, G.R. Nos. 133254-55, April 19, 2001 — Controlling precedent; the Court declared inadmissible marijuana recovered wrapped in newsprint, and reiterated that marijuana seized because it was contained in a plastic bag giving no indication of its contents was likewise inadmissible. The Court applied this ruling to exclude the marijuana bricks in the present case.
• People vs. Yumang, 222 SCRA 119, 123 [1993] — Cited for the definition of a buy-bust operation as a form of entrapment to catch a malefactor in flagrante delicto.
• People vs. Ponsica, 230 SCRA 87 [1994] — Cited for the rule that the crime of illegal sale is consummated as soon as the sale transaction is completed, whether payment precedes or follows delivery.
• People vs. Aruta, 288 SCRA 626, 637 [1998] — Cited for the four elements of a valid seizure under the plain view doctrine.
• People vs. Nzenza, G.R. No. 125985, April 20, 2001 — Cited for the principle that the overriding consideration is whether the court entertains a reasonable doubt as to the accused's guilt.
• People vs. Maongco, 230 SCRA 562 [1994] — Cited for the rule that evidence capable of two or more explanations, one consistent with innocence, does not fulfill the test of moral certainty.
• People vs. Magno, 296 SCRA 443, 451 [1998] — Cited for the rule that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of overlooked or misapplied facts.
• Ker vs. California — Cited within the Salanguit excerpt as a contrasting case where the marijuana was visible to the police officers' eyes, unlike the situation where the contents of an opaque container were not apparent.

• Section 4, Article II, R.A. 6425, as amended — Penalizes the sale, administration, delivery, distribution, and transportation of prohibited drugs, imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00. The Court applied this provision to affirm accused-appellant's conviction for the illegal sale of marijuana.
• Section 8, Article II, R.A. 6425, as amended by R.A. 7659 — Penalizes the possession or use of prohibited drugs, imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00, subject to Section 20. The Court held that conviction under this provision could not stand because the seized marijuana bricks were inadmissible.
• Section 20, R.A. 7659 — Governs the application of penalties for offenses under Sections 3, 4, 8, and 9 of Article II and Sections 14, 15, and 16 of Article III of the Act according to the quantity of the dangerous drugs involved, and provides that if the quantity is less than the enumerated thresholds, the penalty ranges from prision correccional to reclusion perpetua depending on the quantity. The provision supplied the penalty framework for the charges.
• Section 13, Rule 124, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure — The provision pursuant to which the Court of Appeals certified the cases to the Supreme Court, the imposable penalty for the Section 8 charge being reclusion perpetua.
• Article 8, Section 5, Constitution — The constitutional provision cited by the Court of Appeals in certifying the cases to the Supreme Court for final determination.

Bellosillo (Chairman), Mendoza, Quisumbing, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.