SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 103632 September 1, 1993

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ROGELIO MORTOS y TOLENTINO, Accused-Appellant.

ROMERO, J.:

This is an appeal from the decision ¹of the Regional Trial Court convicting accused-appellant Rogelio Mortos of violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act which provides:

Sec. 4. Sale, Administration, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Prohibited Drugs. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from twenty thousand to thirty thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, administer, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any prohibited drug, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions. If the victim of the offense is a minor, or should a prohibited drug involved in any offense under this Section be the proximate cause of the death of a victim thereof, the maximum penalty herein provided shall be imposed. (As amended by PD No. 1675, February 17, 1980)

From the records, we gathered the following facts.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

In the afternoon of January 5, 1990, an informant reported to the Criminal Investigation Service in Cainta, Rizal a certain person who was selling marijuana in Sitio Ruhat, Mambugan, Antipolo, Rizal. Accordingly, a buy-bust team composed of C1C Rogelio Dado, Sgt. Romeo Savillo, C1C Manuel Mercader, and C2C Ronald Villacruzes was organized. Thereafter, the team accompanied by the informant proceeded to the aforementioned place where informant identified the person who was sought to be arrested. Afterwards, the group carried out the plan for the arrest of the suspected pusher.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

C1C Manuel Mercader alighted from the vehicle, walked towards Rogelio Mortos who was then in a sari-sari store where several people were present, and acting as the poseur-buyer, inquired from the latter if he was selling marijuana. When Rogelio Mortos answered in the affirmative, Mercader handed him five (5) marked twenty (20) peso bills. He was then asked to wait while Rogelio Mortos got the marijuana from the sari-sari store. Upon his return, Rogelio Mortos handed to Manuel Mercader a plastic bag containing 50 grams of marijuana. Upon receipt thereof, he scratched his head, the pre-arranged signal to the rest of his team who thereupon approached the two and arrested Rogelio Mortos. They confiscated from him the marked money and tea bags of marijuana. These were later presented as evidence against accused-appellant.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Rogelio Mortos, however, denied selling marijuana. He claimed that he was buying cigarettes from the sari-sari store when he was arrested and brought to the police station where he was allegedly forced to sign a document and five (5) twenty peso bills. ²He also averred that no marijuana or marked bills were ever seized from him.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

After trial, the lower court pronounced the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The dispositive portion of the appealed decision reads as follows:

ALINSUNOD SA MGA NASABI, dahilan sa napatunayan ng taga-usig nang walang bahid alinlangan na si Rogelio Mortos y Tolentino, ang nasasakdal ay nagkasala ng krimeng Paglabag sa Pangkat 4 ng Artikulo II ng Batas Republika 6425 (na sinusugan noong 1972, 1980, at 1982), siya ay pinapatawan ng Hukuman, sang-ayon sa nasabing batas ng parusang habang buhay na pagkabilanggo; at magbayad ng multang DALAWAMPUNG LIBONG PISO (P20,000.00).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Dahil sa siya ay isang bilanggo, ang panahong inilagi ni Rogelio Mortos y Tolentino sa piitan ay ibabawas sa nasabing parusa kung siya ay sasang-ayon sa mga disciplinary rules na inilalapat sa mga bilanggo alinsunod sa Artikulo 29 ng Bagong Kodigo Penal na sinusugan Batas Republika 6127 at Batas Pambansa Blg. 85.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

WALANG KOSTAS.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

ITO ANG IPINAG-UUTOS. ³chanrobles virtual law library

As basis for the judgment of conviction, the trial court relied upon the testimony of the apprehending officers, namely Manuel Mercader, Domingo Dado, and Romeo Savillo, all of whom identified Rogelio Mortos as the drug-pushing suspect who was apprehended during the buy-bust operation and testified that Rogelio Mortos was caught in the act of selling marijuana to Rogelio Mercader. It held that the testimonies of the above-mentioned officers sufficiently established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, notwithstanding his denials in his testimonies. According to the trial court, the accused did not succeed in imputing malice on the part of the arresting officers for arresting and testifying against him.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Accordingly, the trial court applied the rule that public officers are presumed to have performed their duties in accordance with the law. Furthermore, the trial court held that the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the officers were minor and instead of destroying the credibility of their testimonies, buttressed the same.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Rogelio Mortos now appeals his conviction with this sole assignment of error, to wit:

The Court a quo committed a reversible error in admitting the tea bags of marijuana and the twenty peso bills adduced in evidence by the prosecution. ⁴chanrobles virtual law library

The assignment of error goes beyond the issue regarding the admissibility as evidence of the marked money and marijuana. In effect, it questions the manner by which accused-appellant has been arrested and brought to trial.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

In the Appellant's Brief, Rogelio Mortos argued that the provisions of Sec. 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Courts ⁵regarding warrantless arrests are not applicable because he has not committed, nor was he committing, nor was he about to commit a crime when he was arrested. For his arrest and for the search to be valid, therefore, a warrant of arrest and a search warrant were necessary.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

We find no reason to reverse the trial court's judgment.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

After a careful review of the records, we are convinced that the prosecution successfully overcame the initial presumption of innocence enjoyed by the accused and proved the latter's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. To recall, the arresting officers, including the officer who acted as the poseur-buyer, positively testified that Rogelio Mortos was caught selling marijuana.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

To rebut the testimony of the prosecution, the defense presented Rogelio Mortos to testify that he had been coerced into signing a document and five (5) twenty peso bills. Apart from this testimony, however, no other evidence was presented to support his denial. Neither the document nor the bills which were alluded to in Rogelio Mortos' testimony were presented as exhibits for the defense. If there were any bills on record, they were the ones which were offered as evidence by the prosecution. Furthermore, accused did not even reveal to the Court the contents of the alleged document. We find that Rogelio Mortos' denials did not successfully cast doubt on the veracity of the testimony of prosecution's witnesses. "[T]he absence of evidence as to improper motive actuating the principal witnesses for the prosecution strongly tends to sustain the conclusion that no such improper motive existed, and that their testimony is worthy of full faith and credit." ⁶Paraphrasing this Court's pronouncement in People v. Arceo, ⁷we hold that appellant's denial of guilt, uncorroborated by any reliable evidence, cannot possibly overthrow the clear and convincing testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses as to his culpability. In People v. Cruz, ⁸we also said: "We sustain the rule that police officers in buy-bust operations are entitled to the presumption of having acted pursuant to official duty. Their testimony is entitled to great respect."chanrobles virtual law library

The fact that accused-appellant was arrested during a buy-bust
operation - ". . . a form of entrapment employed by peace officers to trap and catch a malefactor in flagrante delicto ⁹- has been established. Since accused-appellant was caught in flagrante delicto, the arresting officers were not only authorized, but were under obligation to apprehend him even without a warrant of arrest. ¹⁰Thus, the arrest of accused-appellant falls within paragraph (a) of the aforequoted provisions of the Rules of Court. ¹¹chanrobles virtual law library

[S]ince appellant's arrest was lawful, it follows that the search made incidental to the arrest was also valid. ¹²This is in accordance with Sec. 12, Rule 126, Revised Rules of Court which provides inter alia:

Sec 12. Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest. - A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof for the commission of an offense, without a search warrant.

From the foregoing, it necessarily follows that because the marijuana and the marked money were taken from the accused during a valid arrest following entrapment, they can be legally admitted as evidence against herein accused-appellant.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

ACCORDINGLY, this appeal is DISMISSED and the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED.

Feliciano, Bidin, Melo and Vitug, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:

1 Usaping Kriminal Blg. 90-5163, December 3, 1991; penned by Judge Rogelio L. Angeles.chanrobles virtual law library

2 TSN, August 12, 1991, p. 4.chanrobles virtual law library

3 Rollo, pp. 29-31. .chanrobles virtual law library

4 Rollo, p. 50.chanrobles virtual law library

5 Section 5. Arrest without a warrant; when lawful. - A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: .chanrobles virtual law library

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.chanrobles virtual law library

In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station, and he shall be proceeded against in accordance with Rule 112, Section 7.chanrobles virtual law library

6 People v Blas, G.R. No. 97930, May 27, 1992, 209 SCRA 339.chanrobles virtual law library

7 G.R. No. 92019, September 30, 1991, 202 SCRA 170.chanrobles virtual law library

8 G.R. No. 87884, November 4, 1992, 215 SCRA 339.chanrobles virtual law library

9 People v. del Pilar, G.R. No. 86360, July 28, 1990, 188 SCRA 37.chanrobles virtual law library

10 See People v. Paco, G.R. No. 76893, February 27, 1989, 170 SCRA 681, citing Alvero v. Dizon, 76 Phil. 637 (1946) and People v. Claudio, G.R. No. 72564, April 15, 1988.chanrobles virtual law library

11 In People v. Acuram, G.R. Nos. 98423-24, May 22, 1992, 209 SCRA 281, we held:

As the law allows warrantless arrests when a crime has just been committed, it was not imperative for the arresting officers to obtain a search warrant or a warrant of arrest. It is of judicial notice that in the arrest of a violator of the Dangerous Drugs Act as a result of a buy-bust operation, the offender is invariably caught red-handed. Hence, the admissibility of the seized marijuana is beyond question.chanrobles virtual law library

12 People v. Paco, Ibid.