People vs. Hindoy and Negrosa

A warrantless search conducted immediately after a lawful warrantless arrest in a legitimate buy-bust operation is a valid search incident to that arrest, extending to the premises under the immediate control of the arrested person. The possession of prohibited drugs in a quantity other than that involved in the sale constitutes a separate crime of illegal possession under Section 8, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, and is not absorbed by the sale when the additional drugs are intended for future dealings or use by the seller.

On 18 March 1994, a woman informant reported to the Mandaluyong Police that a person named “Bella” at 248 Sto. Rosario Street would be receiving a shipment of illegal drugs that day. Acting on the tip, a police team conducted a buy-bust operation at that address in the early morning hours. The operation led to the sale of one brick of marijuana to a poseur-buyer, the subsequent warrantless arrest of Enrique Hindoy and Bella Negrosa, and the discovery of twelve additional bricks of marijuana inside their residence. The two were charged with violating Sections 4 (illegal sale) and 8 (illegal possession) of Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659.

• Nature: The case involves the prosecution of Enrique Hindoy and his live-in partner Bella B. Negrosa for illegal sale and illegal possession of marijuana following a buy-bust operation.

• The Informant’s Tip and the Buy-Bust Operation: At about 2:00 a.m. on 18 March 1994, a female informant went to the Mandaluyong Police Criminal Investigation Division and reported that a certain “Bella” at 248 Sto. Rosario Street would receive a drug shipment that day. SPO4 Jose Antiojo formed a buy-bust team composed of PO3 Roberto Eugenio and SPO1 Angel Cariaga as poseur-buyers, with SPO4 Rolando Cruz, SPO3 Antonio Nato, and SPO1 Bayani Prianes as backup. Guided by the informant, the team proceeded to the address at around 3:00 a.m.

• The Sale: The police knocked on the door; Enrique Hindoy opened it. PO3 Eugenio stated, “May bagong dating, kukuha kami” (If there’s new stuff, we’ll get some), a phrase understood in drug parlance to refer to marijuana. Enrique replied, “Meron” (Yes, there is). Eugenio handed over marked bills—one ₱500.00 and five ₱100.00 bills—which Enrique counted. Enrique then asked Bella to get the “stuff.” Bella complied, fetching a block of marijuana wrapped in newspaper with an estimated weight of one kilogram and giving it to Enrique, who handed it to Eugenio.

• The Arrest and the Warrantless Search: Upon receiving the marijuana, Eugenio and Cariaga identified themselves as police officers. After giving the prearranged signal, they entered the house with the backup operatives and announced that they would conduct a search. Under a table inside the house, they found an abaca bag containing twelve more individually wrapped bricks of marijuana. All thirteen bricks were marked and turned over to SPO1 Prianes for transmission to the NBI. The accused were thereupon placed under arrest.

• Post-Operation Investigation: During the subsequent police investigation, Enrique and Bella were not assisted by counsel.

• Forensic Examination: Forensic Chemist II Julieta C. Flores of the NBI performed a chemical analysis on the specimens submitted by Prianes. Her Certification dated 20 March 1994 confirmed that all thirteen blocks—one weighing 1.01 kilograms and the twelve others weighing a combined 12.04 kilograms—were positive for marijuana.

• Defense Version: Bella and Enrique denied the buy-bust and claimed the marijuana had been left by a stranger. According to Bella, Enrique arrived at her apartment at 10:00 p.m. on 17 March 1994 after attending his aunt’s wake, drank beer, and slept. She testified that past 11:00 p.m., a woman named Marilyn knocked on the door and left a bag to be picked up at dawn by a neighbor named Marites. She could not explain why she did not ask Marilyn to leave it at Marites’s place or inquire about its contents. Bella stated that around 3:00 a.m., Enrique’s brother Renato knocked loudly and, when she opened the door, the police entered and searched the room, finding the abaca bag with marijuana. She alleged the officers then fabricated the buy-bust story to justify the warrantless arrest after their attempt to transfer them to Bicutan was rejected for want of warrants. Enrique corroborated this account and added that he was coerced to admit ownership.

• Trial Court’s Assessment: The RTC credited the testimony of the police officers, bolstered by the forensic chemist’s findings, and found that a genuine negotiation and sale had occurred. It also noted a sworn statement by Bella in which she admitted, “In my desire to support my children … I agreed to safe-keep the said object.” The trial court convicted them on both counts and imposed the penalties of reclusion perpetua and a fine of ₱500,000.00 for each offense.

The accused-appellants, through their consolidated brief, assigned the following errors:

• Validity of Warrantless Search and Arrest: They maintained that no lawful buy-bust operation took place because they were asleep when the police arrived; consequently, the warrantless search was not incidental to a lawful arrest. The seizure of the marijuana was therefore invalid, rendering the contraband inadmissible.

• Admissibility of Evidence: Corollary to the first argument, they contended that the trial court committed reversible error in admitting the compressed marijuana flowering tops as evidence, since the items were obtained in violation of the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The Office of the Solicitor General, representing the People, argued for affirmance of the conviction based on the following points discernible from the Court’s recitation of the prosecution’s evidence:

• Legitimacy of the Buy-Bust Operation: The prosecution’s evidence established a standard buy-bust operation with a valid sale, the elements of which—identity of buyer and seller, object, consideration, and delivery—were fully proven.

• Lawfulness of the Warrantless Arrest and Search: The accused were caught in flagrante delicto committing an offense in the presence of the arresting officers under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. The consequent search of the immediate premises was a valid warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest.

• Credibility of Police Testimony: The testimony of the poseur-buyer and the backup officers was straightforward, consistent, and untainted by ill motive; the police officers were entitled to the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties.

• Separability of the Possession Charge: The possession of the additional 12.04 kilograms of marijuana was a separate offense not absorbed by the sale, which justified the distinct conviction under Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6425.

• Validity of Warrantless Arrest and Search: Whether the warrantless arrest of Enrique Hindoy and Bella Negrosa, and the contemporaneous warrantless search of their residence, were valid as an incident to a lawful arrest effected during a buy-bust operation.

• Admissibility of Seized Marijuana: Whether the trial court correctly admitted the 13 blocks of marijuana in evidence, despite having been seized without a judicial warrant.

• Separate Conviction for Illegal Possession: Whether the conviction for illegal possession of marijuana under Section 8, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, was proper, given that the possession of 12.04 kilograms of marijuana was additional to the 1.01 kilograms sold in the buy-bust.

• Validity of Warrantless Arrest and Search: The warrantless arrest of Enrique Hindoy and Bella Negrosa was valid. The accused were caught in flagrante delicto selling one kilogram of marijuana in the presence of the police officers, a situation squarely covered by paragraph (a), Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, which allows a peace officer to arrest a person when the offense is committed in his presence. Immediately after the arrest, the officers conducted a search of the premises under the accused’s immediate control—the same room where Bella fetched the first brick of marijuana—and there found an abaca bag containing twelve more bricks. Such a search, being incident to a lawful arrest, fell within a recognized exception to the warrant requirement and may extend beyond the person to the surrounding area within the arrestee’s reach. The constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures was not violated.

• Admissibility of Seized Marijuana: Because the search and seizure were incident to a lawful warrantless arrest, all thirteen bricks of marijuana were lawfully obtained. Evidence seized in accordance with an exception to the warrant requirement is not rendered inadmissible by the exclusionary rule under Section 3(2), Article III of the Constitution. Their admission by the trial court was therefore proper.

• Separate Conviction for Illegal Possession: The conviction for illegal possession of prohibited drugs in Criminal Case No. 2674-D was correct. Under the rule in People v. Lacerna, possession of marijuana is absorbed in the sale only when the marijuana possessed is the very same substance that was sold. Where the accused is apprehended in possession of another quantity of prohibited drugs not covered by or included in the sale and which is probably intended for future dealings or use, a separate prosecution for illegal possession lies. Here, aside from the one-kilogram block sold, the police recovered twelve more blocks weighing 12.04 kilograms hidden in a bag under a table. That additional quantity gave rise to a separate violation of Section 8. Moreover, the disputable presumption under Section 3(j), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court—that a person in possession of a thing is its owner—applied, and the bare denial of ownership by the accused, unsupported by credible evidence, was insufficient to overcome that presumption.

• Search Incident to Lawful Arrest Doctrine — A warrantless search may validly be conducted as an incident to a lawful arrest, and its scope extends to the area within the immediate control of the person arrested, including the premises where the arrest was effected. This exception to the warrant requirement is grounded on the need to disarm the arrestee and preserve evidence. The Court applied this doctrine to uphold the seizure of the twelve additional marijuana bricks found under a table in the same small house where the buy-bust sale and arrest took place.

• Non-Absorption of Possession When Additional Drugs Are Found — Under People v. Lacerna, the crime of illegal possession of prohibited drugs is absorbed in the crime of illegal sale only when the drugs possessed are the same as those sold. If the offender is found in possession of another quantity of prohibited drugs—not part of the sale transaction and likely intended for future distribution or use—a separate charge for illegal possession under Section 8, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 will lie. The Court applied this to justify the separate conviction for possession of the 12.04 kilograms beyond the one kilogram sold.

• Presumption of Regularity in the Performance of Official Duties — Police officers are presumed to have performed their duties regularly and within the bounds of their authority, absent clear evidence to the contrary. The bare and uncorroborated denial of the accused could not overcome this presumption, entitling the prosecution’s evidence to full faith and credit.

• Disputable Presumption of Ownership from Possession — Section 3(j), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court creates a disputable presumption that a person who possesses a thing or exercises acts of ownership over it is its owner. This presumption attaches to the possessor of contraband and may be overcome only by contrary proof; a mere denial is insufficient.

• “It is doctrinally settled that the absence of evidence as to an improper motive strongly tends to sustain the conclusion that none existed and that the testimony is worthy of full faith and credit. Moreover, being police officers, they are presumed to have performed their duties regularly, that they acted within the bounds of their authority, unless the contrary is shown.” — The Court reaffirmed the principle that the credibility of police witnesses is fortified when no ill motive is imputed or proven.

• “In fact, the warrantless search and seizure, as an incident to a suspect’s lawful arrest, may extend beyond the person of the one arrested to include the premises or surrounding under his immediate control.” — This passage encapsulates the rule on the permissible breadth of a search incident to a lawful arrest.

• “Possession of marijuana is absorbed in the sale thereof, except where the seller is further apprehended in possession of another quantity of the prohibited drugs not covered by or included in the sale and which are probably intended for some future dealings or use by the seller.” — The Court restated the controlling doctrine from People v. Lacerna, which directly governed the separability of the possession charge.

• People v. Lacerna, 278 SCRA 561 (1997) — Applied. Defined the exceptional circumstance when illegal possession of drugs is not absorbed by the sale: when the quantity possessed is additional to and distinct from the quantity sold.

• People v. Figueroa, 248 SCRA 679 (1995) — Cited as authority for the principle that a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest may extend to the premises under the immediate control of the person arrested.

• People v. de Vera, 275 SCRA 87 (1997) — Cited for the elements of illegal sale of prohibited drugs: identity of the buyer and seller, the object, the consideration, and the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor.

• People v. Magno, 296 SCRA 443 (1998) , People v. Excija, 258 SCRA 424 (1996) , and others — Cited to support the rule that the absence of improper motive and the presumption of regularity lend full credence to the testimony of police officers.

• Section 2, Article III, 1987 Constitution — The guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court recognized that the warrantless search in this case fell within a valid exception, thus not violating this provision.

• Section 5(a), Rule 113, Rules of Court — A peace officer may arrest a person without a warrant when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. The provision was applied to sustain the warrantless arrest of the accused during the buy-bust operation.

• Section 3(j), Rule 131, Rules of Court — Establishes the disputable presumption that a thing possessed by a person is owned by him. This was invoked to support the conclusion that the accused were the owners of the additional marijuana.

• Sections 4 and 8, Article II, Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Section 13 of Republic Act No. 7659 — The provisions penalizing the sale and possession of prohibited drugs, respectively. The penalties of reclusion perpetua and fine were imposed under the amending provisions of R.A. No. 7659 due to the quantity of marijuana involved.

Justices Puno, Kapunan, and Pardo concurred. Justice Ynares-Santiago was on official leave.