People vs. Castiller

Sale of a prohibited drug is consummated by mere delivery to a poseur-buyer even without money changing hands, and a buy-bust operation based on a reliable tip needs no prior surveillance to sustain a conviction. Appellant's warrantless arrest after delivery in the officer's presence and the contemporaneous search of the immediate vicinity were lawful, supporting conviction under Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425.

Adelina Castiller y Castro kept a small store at No. 303 North Daang Hari Street, Taguig, Metro Manila, near an artesian well where neighbors regularly left water containers. The anti-narcotics intelligence division of the Taguig Police Station acted against drug pushing through entrapment by buy-bust operations. Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, punishes any unauthorized person who shall sell, administer, deliver, give away, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any prohibited drug.

At around nine o'clock in the morning of April 18, 1988, the anti-narcotics intelligence division of the Taguig Police Station received information from an undisclosed caller that marijuana was being sold by an old woman in a small store in North Daang Hari Street, Taguig. Capt. Ferdinand Santos immediately organized a buy-bust team composed of Felixberto Maog as team leader, Jesus Chan, Joselito Lintad, Jessie Pasion, Ruel Viring, and Carlos Mendibel. Mendibel was briefed separately as poseur-buyer and handed a twenty-peso bill to purchase marijuana.

Around noontime, the plainclothes team arrived at North Daang Hari and found an old woman in a small store at No. 303 North Daang Hari, pointed out by Pat. Jessie Pasion as the subject, while the backup positioned themselves some fifteen meters away. Mendibel approached appellant and said, La paiskor ng dalawang foil. Appellant went inside the store and returned with two foils of marijuana which she gave to Mendibel. Upon taking the foils, Mendibel introduced himself as a police officer, but before he could hand over the twenty-peso bill, appellant scampered to the back of the store and locked herself inside. Mendibel gave the pre-arranged signal, the officers knocked and asked permission to be allowed inside, and appellant later voluntarily opened the door.

Inside, appellant pointed to a large gray container beside some cases of softdrink with a hole at the bottom, containing a plastic Ajinomoto bag with substances appearing to be marijuana leaves, ten sticks of apparent marijuana cigarettes, five foils of apparent marijuana leaves wrapped in newspaper, six packs of Capitol brand rolling paper, and a red leatherette bag. Appellant and the evidence were brought to the police station, where investigator Pat. Santiago Villa informed her of her constitutional rights and she opted to remain silent except to state her name and desire to consult counsel. The specimens with Capt. Santos's letter-request dated April 18, 1988 were brought to the PC Crime Laboratory at Camp Crame, where P/Capt. Lina C. Sarmiento found them positive for marijuana: 545 grams dried marijuana fruiting tops, ten sticks of marijuana cigarettes, and five newspaper wrappers with 20.77 grams dried marijuana fruiting tops.

For her part, appellant testified that she lived in a squatter area dependent on an artesian well one house away, where neighbors habitually left water containers at her store. She claimed one Magda was the last to leave her container the night before, that at around 11:30 the next morning strangers approached, one held her and said she would be brought to the precinct without answering her demand for a warrant, and others searched the store while she was taken away. She denied knowledge of the contents of the gray container but recognized it as Magda's. Defense witnesses Carmelita Ramos and Rebecca De los Santos testified that neighbors left water containers at the store and that a woman called Magda left a container on the evening of April 17, 1988. The trial court credited the prosecution, finding appellant caught in flagrante delicto delivering marijuana and possessing considerable quantities indicating intent to sell and engagement in illicit trade.

• Credibility: Appellant argued that the trial court erred in giving credence to prosecution witnesses and totally disregarding the defense version, implying denial and the Magda explanation should have prevailed.
• Validity of Buy-Bust Operation: Appellant maintained that no buy-bust operation in fact took place because the police did not know their exact target and acted solely on an unidentified caller's tip describing only an old woman in a store on North Daang Hari, allegedly showing concoction to justify unlawful arrest from intense enthusiasm to respond.
• Unmarked Buy-Bust Money: Appellant argued that the alleged twenty-peso bill was not even marked, rendering the claimed entrapment all the more dubious.
• Unlawful Arrest and Search: Appellant maintained that her warrantless arrest and the warrantless search and seizure upon her premises were unlawful, so conviction could not stand.
• Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Appellant argued that she was not proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 4, Article II of R.A. 6425, as amended.

• Inexperience of Poseur-Buyer: Respondent countered through the Solicitor General that Mendibel, who had joined the police service barely four months earlier and was handling his first drugs case, was a tyro unfamiliar with buy-bust operations and failed to personally check the marking after being informed by his superior that the money was marked.

• Credibility and Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether appellant was proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 4, Article II of R.A. 6425 despite her denial and defense evidence.
• Validity of Buy-Bust Operation: Whether the buy-bust operation was valid although police acted on an undisclosed caller's tip without prior surveillance and without knowing the exact name of the target.
• Unmarked Buy-Bust Money: Whether failure to mark the twenty-peso buy-bust money defeats the prosecution for sale of marijuana.
• Lawfulness of Warrantless Arrest and Search: Whether the warrantless arrest and warrantless search of appellant's store and seizure of marijuana and paraphernalia were lawful.

• Credibility and Sufficiency of Evidence: Yes. Guilt was established by clear, lucid and uncontradicted prosecution testimonies covering every stage, entitled to full faith under the presumption of regularity, prevailing over mere denial.
• Validity of Buy-Bust Operation: Yes. The operation was a recognized entrapment to test a reliable tip, with no prior surveillance required and no arbitrariness where appellant exactly fit the description.
• Unmarked Buy-Bust Money: No. Failure to mark the bill is not fatal because Section 4 punishes delivery and the crime was consummated by delivery of two foils even without money changing hands.
• Lawfulness of Warrantless Arrest and Search: Yes. The arrest was lawful as committed in the officer's presence and the search was valid as incidental to lawful arrest covering the immediate vicinity.

• Credibility and Sufficiency of Evidence: The testimonies substantially covered each stage: team leader Maog on formation of the entrapment, poseur-buyer Mendibel positively identifying appellant as delivering two foils, Chan corroborating the incidental search, Villa on investigation, and Sarmiento confirming the specimens positive for marijuana. Found clear, lucid, straightforward and uncontradicted on material points, with nothing suggesting motive other than to accomplish the mission, the presumption of regular performance of duty applied in the absence of contrary evidence. Mere denials cannot prevail against positive identification as seller, and defense witnesses Ramos and De los Santos offered only minor details without substantiating denial or illegality. Appellant's failure to assist in locating Magda, whom she had known for about a year on the same street and who daily fetched water and bought from the store, further weakened the defense where life and liberty were at stake.
• Validity of Buy-Bust Operation: Entrapment by buy-bust is recognized for apprehending drug pushers because prohibited drugs in small handy quantities are easily concealed and transferred. Where officers had reasonable ground to believe the informer and information were reliable and a crime was being perpetrated, no surveillance was necessary; the operation was formed precisely to test the tip and apprehend the perpetrator before further endangering society. The tip describing an old woman keeping a store at North Daang Hari sufficiently and accurately pointed to appellant, so approaching her was not arbitrary.
• Unmarked Buy-Bust Money: Although the bill was unmarked, Mendibel testified his superior who handed it said it was marked, and his failure to personally check was explained by inexperience of barely four months in service on his first drugs case. In any event, the Dangerous Drugs Act punishes any unauthorized person who shall sell, administer, deliver, give away, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any prohibited drug. Mendibel's offer to buy was accepted and appellant produced and delivered the foils, consummating the crime by mere delivery even without payment.
• Lawfulness of Warrantless Arrest and Search: Both paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure were attendant: appellant was caught in flagrante delicto delivering two sticks of marijuana in the officer's presence, giving personal knowledge of the offense, justifying arrest without warrant with forthwith delivery to the police station. Entry was lawful because Section 11, Rule 113 permits breaking in after announcing authority and purpose when refused admittance to make a lawful warrantless arrest where the person attempts to evade, and here no breaking was needed since appellant voluntarily allowed officers inside. The search was valid as an exception to the warrant requirement for searches incidental to lawful arrest under Section 12, Rule 126, allowing contemporaneous search of the arrestee and immediate vicinity where arrested, so the seized items were properly admitted.

• Buy-bust operation as recognized entrapment — A buy-bust operation is a recognized means of entrapment for apprehension of drug pushers, justified by the easy concealment and transfer of prohibited drugs in small quantities. Applied to uphold the Taguig operation formed to test the caller's tip that an old woman in a store on North Daang Hari was selling marijuana.
• No prior surveillance required — No surveillance of the area or subject is necessary where police have reasonable ground to believe the informer and information are reliable and a crime is being perpetrated. Applied because the tip sufficiently and accurately described appellant, eliminating arbitrariness.
• Consummation by mere delivery — Under Section 4, Article II of R.A. 6425, the offense is consummated by mere delivery, giving away, or distribution of prohibited drug even without money changing hands. Applied to hold the sale complete when appellant produced and delivered two foils to Mendibel despite non-payment and unmarked buy-bust money.
• Presumption of regularity and denial vs. positive identification — In the absence of contrary evidence, police officers are presumed to perform duties regularly and their clear testimonies merit full faith; mere denials cannot prevail against positive identification as seller. Applied to credit the buy-bust team over appellant's denial and Magda theory.
• Warrantless arrest in flagrante delicto — Under Section 5(a) and (b), Rule 113, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, a peace officer may arrest without warrant when in his presence the person has committed, is committing, or is attempting to commit an offense, or when an offense has just been committed with personal knowledge of facts indicating the arrestee committed it. Applied because delivery occurred in Mendibel's presence.
• Entry to effect lawful warrantless arrest — Under Section 11, Rule 113, an officer may break into a building where the arrestee is or is reasonably believed to be if refused admittance after announcing authority and purpose, where the person attempts to evade arrest. Applied to sustain entry where appellant locked herself inside but later voluntarily opened the store.
• Search incidental to lawful arrest — Under Section 12, Rule 126, a person lawfully arrested may be searched without warrant for dangerous weapons or anything usable as proof, including a contemporaneous search of the immediate vicinity of arrest. Applied to validate seizure of the Ajinomoto bag, cigarettes, wrappers, rolling paper and containers from the store.

• "The buy-bust operation is a recognized means of entrapment for the apprehension of drug pushers [People v. Gatong-o G.R. No. 78698, December 29, 1988, 168 SCRA 716]." — States the controlling validation of entrapment in drug cases and anchors the rejection of the claim that the operation was concocted.
• "That searches and seizures must be supported by a valid warrant is not an absolute rule [Manipon Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 58889, July 31, 1986, 143 SCRA 267]." — Introduces the exception for search incidental to lawful arrest under which the store search and seizures were sustained.
• "[a] person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant." — Quotes the governing rule for incidental searches justifying admission of the seized marijuana and paraphernalia.
• "A drug pusher is a killer without mercy. He poisons the mind and deadens the body. He deserves no mercy." — Reproduces the oft-cited dictum from People v. Abedes invoked to affirm the conviction and underscore societal protection from prohibited drugs.

• People vs. Gatong-o, G.R. No. 78698, December 29, 1988, 168 SCRA 716 — Followed as authority that buy-bust operation is a recognized means of entrapment for apprehending drug pushers.
• People vs. Natipravat, G.R. No. 69876, November 13, 1986, 145 SCRA 483; People vs. De Jesus, G.R. Nos. 71942-3, November 13, 1986, 145 SCRA 521; People vs. Claudia, G.R. No. 72564, April 15, 1988, 160 SCRA 646 — Followed for the presumption that police officers perform duties regularly absent contrary evidence.
• People vs. Patog, G.R. No. 69620, September 24, 1986, 144 SCRA 429 — Followed to accord full faith and credence to police testimonies.
• People vs. Khan, G.R. No. 71863, May 23, 1988, 161 SCRA 406; People vs. Paco, G.R. No. 76893, February 27, 1989, 170 SCRA 681 — Followed for the rule that mere denials cannot prevail against positive identification as seller.
• Manipon, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 58889, July 31, 1986, 143 SCRA 267 — Followed to hold that warrant-backed searches and seizures are not absolute.
• Nolasco vs. Pano, G.R. No. 69803, January 30, 1987, 147 SCRA 509 — Followed to allow contemporaneous search of the arrestee and immediate vicinity of arrest.
• People vs. Abedes, G.R. No. 73399, November 28, 1986, 146 SCRA 132 — Quoted for the dictum condemning drug pushers and supporting affirmance.

• Section 4, Article II, Republic Act No. 6425, as amended (Dangerous Drugs Act) — Punishes any unauthorized person who shall sell, administer, deliver, give away, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any prohibited drug; applied to convict appellant for delivering two foils and possessing bulk marijuana indicating intent to sell.
• Section 20, Article II, Republic Act No. 6425, as amended — Basis for ordering turnover of the 545 grams, ten sticks, and 20.77 grams of marijuana to the Dangerous Drugs Board Custodian, NBI, for disposal according to law.
• Section 5, Rule 113, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure — Authorizes warrantless arrest when offense is committed in officer's presence or has just been committed with personal knowledge; applied to validate arrest after in flagrante delivery.
• Section 11, Rule 113, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure — Allows breaking into a building after announcing authority and purpose when refused admittance to make lawful warrantless arrest where evasion is attempted; applied to sustain entry after appellant locked herself inside then voluntarily opened.
• Section 12, Rule 126, Rules on Criminal Procedure — Allows warrantless search of person lawfully arrested and immediate vicinity for weapons or proof of offense; applied to validate seizure from the gray container in the store.
• Section 5(m), Rule 131 (cited as Rule 13, Section 5(m)), Rules of Court — Presumption of regular performance of official duty; applied to credit police testimonies.
• Article 45, Revised Penal Code — Basis for confiscation and forfeiture in favor of Government of instruments of the crime; applied to the gray plastic container, red leatherette bag, and six packs of rolling paper.

Fernan, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., and Feliciano, JJ., concur. Bidin, J., is on leave.