People vs. Liquen

A buy-bust operation that catches an accused in flagrante selling a prohibited drug justifies a warrantless arrest and a search incidental to that lawful arrest; the seized marked money and drugs are admissible, and frame-up is a weak defense that cannot overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty.

The People prosecuted Alvin Liquen y Coros under R.A. No. 6425, the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, for the sale of prohibited drugs. Section 4 of that statute penalizes the sale, administration, delivery, distribution, and transportation of prohibited drugs and prescribes both life imprisonment and a fine ranging from P20,000.00 to P30,000.00. The appeal requires the SC to review a conviction under that statute.

Alvin Liquen y Coros was charged under an information alleging that on or about 26 August 1989, in Zamboanga City, he sold two match boxes of dried marijuana leaves to Sgt. Pedro S. Mamuad, a NARCOM agent who posed as buyer, without authority of law. On 24 August 1989, the 9th Narcotics Command Regional Unit in Zamboanga City received information from a civilian informer that marijuana was being sold at Sangali, Zamboanga City. Sgt. Mamuad was dispatched the following day with the civilian informer to survey and observe the locality. They proceeded to Sangali and saw appellant Liquen selling, at or near the vicinity of the JR Store, what they presumed to be marijuana to a group of teenagers, each of the group giving him payment. Sgt. Mamuad did not arrest Liquen at that time because he was on a surveillance and observation mission.

On 26 August 1989, a team of NARCOM agents was formed to entrap appellant. Sgt. Amos Foncardas, the team leader and arresting officer, designated Sgt. Mamuad to pose as buyer. Mamuad was handed two P10.00 bills and four P5.00 bills, totaling P40.00, which had been marked, for use in purchasing marijuana. The other team members were Sgt. Alarcon and Sgt. Francia. At 2:00 p.m., the team took a privately owned jeepney bound for Sangali. When they neared the JR Store, Sgt. Mamuad saw appellant at the store. He instructed the jeepney driver to park at a CAFGU check-point about 100 meters away from the JR Store. Mamuad walked back toward the JR Store, followed closely by the rest of the team. When he reached the store, he approached appellant and struck up a conversation. Mamuad indicated his intention to buy some “damo” and gave appellant the marked peso bills. Appellant gave Mamuad two match boxes of marijuana at P20.00 per box. Mamuad opened the boxes, inspected and smelled their contents, and, satisfied that they contained marijuana, gave the pre-arranged signal of scratching the back of his head. The rest of the team—Sgts. Foncardas, Alarcon, and Francia—went inside the store, surrounded appellant, and arrested him after introducing themselves as NARCOM agents. They searched his body and recovered from the front right pocket of his pants the P40.00 in marked money. Appellant was brought to NARCOM Headquarters for investigation. Sgt. Francia advised the team to place their initials on the top of each of the two match boxes. The boxes were forwarded to the Philippine Constabulary Crime Laboratory. In Chemistry Record No. D-653-09 (Exhibit “A”), PC Chemist Mrs. Athena Anderson stated that four tests were conducted on the specimen contents and all four showed dried marijuana leaves.

Appellant denied selling marijuana to Sgt. Mamuad. According to him, on the date and time stated in the information, he happened to be taking a snack at the JR Store when NARCOM agents then unknown to him arrived. One of the agents allegedly poked a knife at his throat and dragged him toward a parked vehicle. He was forcibly placed inside the vehicle and brought to a place unfamiliar to him for investigation. The defense presented two witnesses to support this story.

The trial court found the testimony of the police officers to have been straightforward and credible.

• Admission of Evidence / Illegal Arrest and Search: Appellant Liquen argued that the peso bills and marijuana adduced in evidence by the prosecution should not have been admitted because they were the fruits of an illegal arrest and search; he insisted that he was not lawfully arrested as he was not then committing any offense but was merely taking a snack at the JR Store at the time of arrest.
• Sufficiency of Evidence / Frame-Up: Appellant denied having sold marijuana to Sgt. Mamuad and claimed he had been “framed” by the police team; he testified that NARCOM agents poked a knife at his throat, dragged him toward a parked vehicle, forcibly placed him inside, and brought him to an unfamiliar place for investigation.
• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Appellant argued that the prosecution’s evidence was incredible, describing the account of a pusher selling at a public place in full view of on-lookers for a pittance of P40.00 as unworthy of belief, and pointed to alleged contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.

• Validity of Warrantless Arrest and Search: Whether the peso bills and marijuana were admissible despite appellant’s claim that they were the fruits of an illegal warrantless arrest and search.
• Sufficiency of Evidence and Frame-Up: Whether the prosecution established appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 4 of R.A. No. 6425, notwithstanding his defense of frame-up and the alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence.
• Penalty: Whether the trial court imposed the correct penalty under Section 4 of R.A. No. 6425.

• Validity of Warrantless Arrest and Search: Yes. Appellant was caught in flagrante as a result of the buy-bust operation, so the warrantless arrest was lawful under Section 5(a), Rule 113, and the search incidental to that arrest made the marked money and marijuana admissible.
• Sufficiency of Evidence and Frame-Up: Yes. The prosecution established the sale beyond reasonable doubt; frame-up is a weak defense, and the alleged inconsistencies concerned minor details that did not impair the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.
• Penalty: No. The trial court erred in imposing reclusion perpetua alone; Section 4 of R.A. No. 6425 requires both life imprisonment and a fine ranging from P20,000.00 to P30,000.00, so the SC imposed life imprisonment plus a P20,000.00 fine.

• Validity of Warrantless Arrest and Search: The SC held that entrapment or the employment of ways and means of entrapping and catching an offender in flagrante is no bar to prosecution and conviction, not being prohibited by law. Appellant was caught in flagrante as a result of the buy-bust operation; under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, a peace officer may arrest 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 police team was therefore authorized and obligated to arrest appellant without a warrant. The search of appellant’s body was incidental to a lawful arrest, a recognized exception to the warrant requirement, so the seizure of the marked money and marijuana could not be assailed as violative of the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. The SC cited People vs. Santos and People vs. Castiller for the warrantless arrest and People vs. Tangliben and People vs. Castiller for the search incidental to a lawful arrest.
• Sufficiency of Evidence and Frame-Up: The SC held that frame-up, like alibi, is a weak defense easy to fabricate but difficult to prove, and more difficult to prove than alibi because of the presumption that public officers performed their official duty in a regular manner. Appellant failed to overcome that presumption; there was no proof of evil motive on the part of the policemen that might have led them to extort money and falsely attribute a serious criminal offense to him. The evidence showed that appellant physically delivered to Sgt. Mamuad the two match boxes of marijuana pursuant to their agreement of purchase and sale; the agreement and prompt delivery constituted the sale punished by law. The SC rejected the argument that the sale was incredible because it took place in a public place for P40.00, noting that drug pushers are not normally very discriminating in choosing where to peddle their merchandise and that a public place may conceal or disguise the transaction; it relied on People vs. Paco. The SC also held that pre-existing familiarity between the poseur-buyer and the agents is not material; what matters is positive proof of the agreement and delivery. The alleged inconsistencies—whether the purchase took place inside or outside the JR Store, the informer’s physical appearance and height, and whether the buyer knew how much marijuana P40.00 could buy—were minor details that did not adversely impact the credibility of the prosecution witnesses or the trustworthiness of their testimony. The trial court found the police officers’ testimony straightforward and credible.
• Penalty: Section 4 of R.A. No. 6425 prescribes the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P20,000.00 to P30,000.00 for sale of prohibited drugs. The SC held that both life imprisonment and a fine must be imposed in case of conviction. The trial court imposed only reclusion perpetua, which is different juridically from life imprisonment, and failed to impose the fine. Since appeal by an accused convicted in a criminal case throws open the whole case for review, including modification and increase of the imposable penalty, the SC imposed life imprisonment plus a P20,000.00 fine. It cited People vs. Avila for the rule that an appeal opens the whole case for review.

• Entrapment and Buy-Bust Operation — Entrapment, or the employment of ways and means of entrapping and catching an offender in flagrante, is no bar to prosecution and conviction, not being prohibited by law. The SC applied this rule because appellant was caught in flagrante selling marijuana in a buy-bust operation.
• Warrantless Arrest In Flagrante — Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure allows a peace officer to arrest without a warrant when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. Appellant was caught in flagrante as a result of the buy-bust operation, so the NARCOM team was authorized and obligated to arrest him without a warrant.
• Search Incidental to a Lawful Arrest — A search incidental to a lawful arrest is a recognized exception to the warrant requirement. The seizure of the marked money and marijuana from appellant after his lawful warrantless arrest could not be assailed as violative of the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.
• Frame-Up as a Defense — Frame-up, like alibi, is a weak defense that is easy to fabricate but difficult to prove; it is more difficult to prove than alibi because of the presumption that public officers performed their official duty in a regular manner. Appellant failed to overcome this presumption.
• Sale of Prohibited Drugs — The agreement and prompt delivery of the marijuana by appellant to Sgt. Mamuad constituted the sale punished by law. Pre-existing familiarity between the poseur-buyer and the agents is not material; what matters is positive proof of the agreement and the delivery that consummates the sale.
• Penalty under Section 4, R.A. No. 6425 — Section 4 requires both life imprisonment and a fine ranging from P20,000.00 to P30,000.00 in case of conviction. Reclusion perpetua is different juridically from life imprisonment, and the SC imposed life imprisonment plus a P20,000.00 fine.
• Appeal Opens the Whole Case — An appeal by an accused convicted in a criminal case throws open the whole case for review, including modification and increase of the imposable penalty. The SC used this rule to correct the trial court’s penalty.

• “It has been held many times by this Court that entrapment, or the employment of ways and means of entrapping and catching an offender in flagrante is no bar to prosecution and conviction, not being prohibited by law.” — The SC used this to reject appellant’s challenge to the buy-bust operation and the warrantless arrest.
• “The defense of “frame-up,” like alibi, is a weak defense that is easy to fabricate but difficult to prove.” — The SC used this to reject appellant’s claim that the NARCOM agents framed him.
• “The agreement and the prompt delivery of the marijuana made by appellant, constituted the sale that is punished by the law.” — The SC used this to hold that the buy-bust operation established the sale of prohibited drugs.
• “Under the above quoted provision, both life imprisonment and a fine ranging from P20,000.00 to P30,000.00 must be imposed in case of conviction.” — The SC used this to correct the trial court’s failure to impose the fine.

• People vs. Castiller, 188 SCRA 376 (1990) — Cited in support of the rule that entrapment is no bar to prosecution and conviction and that a search incidental to a lawful arrest is valid.
• People vs. Santos, 200 SCRA 431 (1991) — Cited in support of the warrantless arrest of a person caught in flagrante.
• People vs. Tangliben, 184 SCRA 220 (1990) — Cited as an example of the recognized exception allowing a search incidental to a lawful arrest.
• People vs. Paco, 170 SCRA 681 (1989) — Quoted and followed for the rule that drug pushers may sell in public places and that the public nature of the place does not necessarily discourage the illegal trade.
• People vs. Arbolante, 203 SCRA 85 (1991) — Cited for the rule that minor discrepancies in prosecution testimony do not adversely affect the witnesses’ credibility.
• People vs. Macuto, 176 SCRA 762 (1989) — Cited for the presumption that public officers performed their official duty in a regular manner.
• People vs. Borja, 182 SCRA 581 (1990) — Cited for the rule that the agreement and delivery consummate the sale of a prohibited drug.
• People vs. Avila, G.R. No. 84612, 11 March 1992 — Cited for the rule that an appeal by an accused throws open the whole case for review, including modification and increase of the penalty.

• Section 4, Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) — Penalizes the sale, administration, delivery, distribution, and transportation of prohibited drugs and prescribes life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P20,000.00 to P30,000.00. The SC applied it to affirm appellant’s conviction and impose life imprisonment plus a P20,000.00 fine.
• Section 5(a), Rule 113, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure — Allows a peace officer to arrest 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 SC applied it because appellant was caught in flagrante in the buy-bust operation.
• Constitutional provision prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures — The SC held that the seizure of the marked money and marijuana after appellant’s lawful warrantless arrest did not violate this prohibition because the search was incidental to a lawful arrest.