G.R. No.

94953 September 5, 1994

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ARMANDO DE LARA Y GALARO, accused-appellant.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Tan, Manzano & Velez for accused-appellant.
!IASON, J.:
This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Manila in Criminal Case !o. "#"$%, finding appellant guilt&
'e&ond reasona'le dou't of violating (ection # of Repu'lic )ct !o. *#2$, as amended '& B.+. Blg. ,-".
.
The .nformation charged appellant as follo/s0
That on or a'out 1anuar& ", ,"-, in the Cit& of Manila, +hilippines, the said accused, not 'eing authorized '& la/ to sell, deliver, give a/a&
to another or distri'ute an& prohi'ited drug, did then and there /illfull& and unla/full& sell or offer for sale t/o 223 foils of flo/ering tops of
mari4uana and one 2,3 plastic 'ag of flo/ering tops of mari4uana, /hich are prohi'ited drugs 2Rollo, p. *3.
5pon arraignment, appellant, assisted '& his counsel de parte, pleaded not guilt& to the information 2Records p. $3.
..
6n 7ecem'er ,$, ,"*, Capt. Restituto Ca'la&an of the !ational Criminal .nvestigation (ervice 2!C.(3 of the 8estern +olice 7istrict
28+73, instructed (gt. 9nri:ue 7avid to conduct a surveillance operation in the vicinit& of ;arrido and <amora (treets at (ta. )na, Manila,
after receiving reports of rampant drug-pushing in that area 2T(!, 7ecem'er ,#, ,"-, p. 2,3.
.n compliance thereof, a team led '& (gt. 9nri:ue 7avid, conducted a surveillance operation on 7ecem'er ,$ and ,-, and confirmed the
reported drug-pushing activities in that area '& the group of appellant and a certain Ric=& alias >+ila&> 2T(!, 7ecem'er 2, ,"-, pp. $-*3. !o
arrest /as made 'ecause the team /as instructed '& their superior to conduct a surveillance operation onl& 2T(!, 1anuar& ,,, ,", p. 23.
6n 1anuar& , ,"-, Mala&a 29?h. >@>3 and +eopleAs Tonight 29?h. >B>3, reported that there /ere rampant, drug-pushing activities in the
vicinit& of ;arrido and <amora (treets in (ta. )na, Manila, prompting ;en. )lfredo Cim, then 8+7 (uperintendent, to reprimand the !C.(
office 2T(!, 7ecem'er 2, ,"-, p. 23.
6n 1anuar& ", 'ecause of the reprimand given '& ;en. Cim, Capt. Ca'la&an instructed (gt. 7avid to plan a 'u&-'ust operation and to form a
si?-man team /ith +fc. Martin 6rolfo, 1r. as the poseur-'u&er 2T(!, 7ecem'er 2, ,"-, p. *, 1anuar& ,,, ,", p. *3.
)t around #0#$ +.M. of the same da&, the team, together /ith their confidential informant, /ent to ;arrido (treet. 5pon arriving threat, the&
strategicall& positioned themselves. +fc. 6rolfo, 1r. and the confidential informant proceeded to the house of appellant located at !o. 22*-
;arrido (treet, /here the& sa/ him standing outside. The confidential informant introduced +fc. 6rolfo, 1r. to appellant as an interested
'u&er of mari4uana. )ppellant as=ed +fc. 6rolfo, 1r. >.lan ang 'i'ilhin nin&oD> 2Eo/ much /ill &ou 'u&D3. +fc. 6rolfo, 1r., replied0 >T/o
foils> handing at the same time the mar=ed t/ent&-peso 'ill 29?h. >9>3 to appellant. The latter, after placing the mone& in the right poc=et of
his pants, /ent inside his house 2T(!, 1anuar& ,,, ,", pp. --"3. Minutes later, appellant came 'ac= and handed t/o foils 29?hs. >7-,-a>
and >7-,-'>3 /rapped in onion paper 2T(!, 1anuar& ,,, ,", p. 3. .t /as after he handed the t/o foils to +fc. 6rolfo 1r., that he sensed the
presence of the police operatives. Ee then tried to retrieve the t/o foils 'ut +fc. 6rolfo, 1r. prevented him from doing so. 7uring the scuffle,
one foil /as torn. )ppellant then ran inside his house /ith +fc. 6rolfo, 1r. in pursuit. The latter /as a'le to su'due appellant. (gt. 7avid
confronted appellant, /ho admitted that he =ept prohi'ited drugs in his house. )ppellant sho/ed the arresting officers a 'lue plastic 'ag /ith
/hite lining containing prohi'ited drugs. ) receipt of the articles seized 29?h. >@>3 /as made '& +fc. 6rolfo, 1r. 2T(!, 1anuar& ,,, ,", pp.
,2-,$3.
Thereafter, the team, together /ith appellant, proceeded to the 8+7 head:uarters for investigation. Thereat, (gt. 7avid ordered +fc. 6rolfo,
1r. to commence the investigation of appellant 2T(!, 1anuar& ,,, ,", pp. ,"-2,3.
7uring the investigation, appellant /as apprised of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to have the assistance of counsel. 8hen
appellant /as as=ed to give a /ritten statement, he refused to do so pending arrival of his la/&er 2T(!, 1anuar& ,,, ,", p. 2%3.
The prohi'ited drugs seized from appellant /ere 'rought to the !B. for chemical anal&sis. ) report and certification of Ms. )ida +ascual,
@orensic Chemist of the !B. 29?hs. >C> and >7>3, sho/ the drugs to 'e positive for mari4uana.
)ppellant denied having sold mari4uana to an&one and claimed that the arresting officers merel& planted the mari4uana on his person. Ee
testified that on 1anuar& ", ,"-, he arrived home from /or= as a securit& guard of the Vergara Brothers )genc& at around %0FF +.M. )fter
changing his clothes, he /ent out to fetch his son, /ho /as left in the care of a neigh'or. 5pon returning to his house /ith his son, he /as
arrested '& the police. The police proceeded to search his house, /ithout an& search /arrant sho/n to him. )fter the search, he and his /ife
/ere 'rought to the 8+7 head:uarters. Ee claimed that inspite of his protestation that he /ould li=e to /ait for his la/&er 'efore giving an&
statement, the police continued their interrogation.
)ppellant denied that the t/ent&-peso 'ill /as given to him '& the poseur-'u&er. Ee claimed that he /as merel& forced to sign his name on
the photocop& of the t/ent&-peso 'ill 29?h. >@>3 and that the first time he sa/ the 'lue plastic 'ag containing prohi'ited drugs /as /hen he
/as at the police station 2T(!, 1une ,#, ,", pp. ,-,,3.
To corro'orate his stor&, appellant presented his &ounger 'rother, ;err& de Cara.
6n 6cto'er 2, ,"", the trial court rendered its decision, disposing as follo/s0
8E9R9@6R9, 4udgment is here'& rendered finding the accused guilt& 'e&ond reasona'le dou't of violation of (ec #, )rt .. of R.). *#2$ as
amended as charged in the .nformationG and this Court here'& sentences the accused to suffer a penalt& of life imprisonment and to pa& a fine
of +2F,FFF.FF 2Rollo, p. 2#3.
Eence, this appeal.
...
.n his appeal, appellant :uestions the legalit& of his arrest and the seizure of prohi'ited drugs found inside his house. @urthermore, he claims
that he /as not assisted '& counsel during his custodial interrogation 2Rollo, pp. $$-$-3.
)s to the legalit& of appellantAs arrest, /e find that the police operatives acted /ithin the 'ounds of la/.
(ection $, Rule ,,% of the ,"$ Rules on Criminal +rocedures dealing /ith /arrantless arrests provides0
)rrest /ithout /arrantG /hen la/ful. H ) peace officer or a private person ma&, /ithout a /arrant, arrest a personG
a3 8hen, in his presence, the person to 'e arrested has committed, is actuall& committing, or is attempting to commit an offenseG
'3 8hen an offense has in fact 4ust 'een committed and he has personal =no/ledge of facts indicating that the person to 'e arrested has
committed itG
??? ??? ???
.n the case at 'ench, appellant /as caught red-handed in delivering t/o tin foils of mari4uana to +at. 6rolfo, 1r., the poseur-'u&er. )ppl&ing
the aforementioned provision of la/, appellantAs arrest /as la/full& effected /ithout need of a /arrant of arrest. >Eaving caught the
appellant in flagrante as a result of the 'u&-'ust operation, the policemen /ere not onl& authorized 'ut /ere also under o'ligation to
apprehend the drug pusher even /ithout a /arrant of arrest> 2+eople v. Balu'iran, ,"* (CR) *## I,"",JG People vs. De Los Santos, 2FF
(CR) #%, I,"",J3.
)ppellant, ho/ever, asseverates that his arrest /as precipitated onl& '& ne/spaper pu'lications a'out the rampant sale of drugs along
;arrido and <amora (treets, (ta. )na, Manila 2Rollo, p. $%3. .f appellant implies that the police merel& stage-managed his arrest in order to
sho/ that the& /ere not remiss in their duties, then appellant is /rong. ) surveillance on the illegal activities of the appellant /as alread&
conducted '& the police as earl& as 7ecem'er ,$ and ,-, ,"*. The ne/spaper reports concerning the illegal drug activities came out onl& on
1anuar& and ,#, ,"-, long after the police =ne/ of the said illegal activities. )ppellantAs eventual arrest on 1anuar& ", ,"- /as the result
of the surveillance conducted and the 'u&-'ust operation.
The evidence sho/s that appellant ran inside his house upon sensing the presence of the police operatives. The testimon& of +at. 6rolfo, 1r.,
the poseur-'u&er, is as follo/s0
@.(C)C0
K0 )fter placing the +2F 'ill in his right poc=et, /hat did he doD
)0 Ee /ent to his house and minutes later, he came 'ac=, sir.
K0 8hen he came 'ac= /hat happenedD
)0 Ee handed to me t/o tin foils containing suspected mari4uana leaves /rapped in onion paper.
K0 )nd /hat happened ne?t /hen he returned /ith those itemsD
)0 )fter he handed to me t/o foils, he sensed the presence of the operatives and he tried to retrieve the t/o foils, sir, and . prevented him and
during the scuffle one piece of foil /as 'ro=en, he tried to run inside the house, so . su'dued him immediatel& and apprehended him /hile he
/as inside the house.
K0 )fter he /as su'dued '& &our group, /hat happenedD
)0 (gt. 7avid confronted him regarding this case and he voluntaril& admitted that he /as still =eeping prohi'ited drugs inside his houseD
K0 8hat did the group do after he voluntaril& admitted that he /as =eeping prohi'ited drugs inside his houseD
)0 Ee pointed inside his house 2sic3 one plastic 'ag colored 'lue /ith /hite lining containing prohi'ited drug> 2T(!, 1anuar& ,,, ,", pp.
,2-,#3.
The policemenAs entr& into the house of appellant /ithout a search /arrant /as in hot-pursuit of a person caught committing an offense in
flagrante. The arrest that follo/ed the hot-pursuit /as valid 2,"$ Rules on Criminal +rocedure, Rule ,,%, (ection $IaJ3.
8e also find as valid the seizure of the plastic 'ag of prohi'ited drugs found inside appellantAs house.
The seizure of the plastic 'ag containing prohi'ited drugs /as the result of appellantAs arrest inside his house. ) contemporaneous search ma&
'e conducted upon the person of the arrestee and the immediate vicinit& /here the arrest /as made 2+eople v. Castiller, , (CR) %-*
I,""FJ3.
8e find to 'e meritorious appellantAs claim that he /as not assisted '& counsel during the custodial investigation, specificall& /hen he /as
forced to sign the photocop& of the mar=ed t/ent&-peso 'ill 29?h. >9>3, Receipt of +ropert& (eized 29?h. >@>3, and the Boo=ing and
.nformation (heet 29?h. >E>3.
The said documents are inadmissi'le in evidence for the reason that there /as no sho/ing that appellant /as then assisted '& counsel nor his
/aiver thereto put into /riting 2Constitution, )rt. ..., (ec. %I2J3.
Be that as it ma&, the re4ection of said evidence /ould not affect the conviction of appellant in vie/ of the a'undance of other evidence
esta'lishing his guilt. The ruling in People v. Mauyao, 2F- (CR) -%2 2,""23 isapropos0
.t 'ears emphasis, ho/ever, that the accused appellantAs conformit& to the :uestioned documents has not 'een a factor at all in his conviction.
@or even if these documents /ere disregarded, still the accused-appellantAs guilt has 'een ade:uatel& esta'lished '& other evidence of record.
The trial courtAs verdict /as 'ased on the evidence of the prosecution not on his signatures on the :uestioned documents. )ccused-appellantAs
denial simpl& can not prevail over the detailed and unsha=en testimonies of the apprehending officers /ho caught him red-handed selling
mari4uana and /ho have not sho/n to have an& ulterior motive to testif& falsel& against accused-appellant.
.V
The trial court sentenced appellant to suffer the penalt& of life imprisonment and to pa& a fine of +2F,FFF.FF pursuant to (ection #, )rticle ..
of the 7angerous 7rugs )ct of ,"-2, as amended '& B.+. Blg. ,-". Eo/ever, said la/ /as further amended '& R.). !o. -*$".
5nder (ection ,- of R.). !o. -*$", the penalt& to 'e imposed for selling, administering, delivering or distri'uting less than -$F grams of
mari4uana, shall range from "prision correccional to reclusion perpetua depending upon the :uantit&.>
5nder (ection # of R.). !o. -*$", the penalt& for selling, dispensing, delivering, transporting or distri'uting mari4uana in e?cess of -$F
grams or more shall 'e >reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from @ive Eundred Thousand +esos to Ten Million +esos.>
8e noticed that the penalt& of reclusion perpetua /as imposed '& R.). !o. -*$" as the ma?imum penalt& /hen the :uantit& of the
mari4uana involved in the offense is less than -$F grams and at the same time as the minimum penalt& /hen the :uantit& of mari4uana
involved is -$F grams or more. .t is the dut& of the Court to harmonize conflicting provisions to give effect to the /hole la/ 2Rufino Copez
and (ons v. Court of )ppeals, ,FF +hil. $F I,"$-J3. @urthermore, one of this CourtAs primordial responsi'ilities is to give a statute its
sensi'le construction. This is to effectuate the intention of the legislature so as to avoid an a'surd conclusion /ith regard to its meaning
2Cam' v. +hipps, 22 +hil. #$* I,",2J3. Therefore, /hen the :uantit& involved is less than -$F grams, (ection ,- of R.). !o. -*$" should 'e
read correctl& to provide a penalt& ranging from prision correccional to reclusion teporal onl&.
The provision of )rticle 22 of the Revised +enal Code, /hich states that >penal la/s shall have a retroactive effect insofar as the& favor the
person guilt& of a felon&,> finds meaning in this case. )ppellant is entitled to 'enefit from the reduction of the penalt& introduced '& R.).
!o. -*$".
.n order to determine the penalt& to 'e imposed on appellant, /e first divide the amount of -$F grams into three to correspond to the three
applica'le penalties, namel&, prision correccional, prision ayor and reclusion teporal.
.f the mari4uana involved is from $FF to -#" grams, the penalt& to 'e imposed is reclusion teporal. .f the mari4uana involved is from 2$F to
#"" grams, the penalt& to 'e imposed is prision ayor and if the /eight of the mari4uana involved is 'elo/ 2$F grams, the penalt& to 'e
imposed is prision correccional.
(ince there is no evidence as to the /eight of the t/o foils and one plastic 'ag of flo/ering tops of mari4uana seized from appellant, /e
resolve the dou't in favor of appellant and conclude that the :uantit& involved /as0 2i3 'elo/ -$F gramsG and 2ii3 not less than 2$F 'ut not
more than #"" grams.
Eence, the ma?imum penalt& that can 'e imposed on appellant is prision ayor. )ppl&ing the .ndeterminate (entence Ca/ to appellant, /ho
/as convicted under a special la/ 2+eople vs. Macantando, ,F" (CR) %$ I,",J3, and as such la/ /as interpreted in People v. Sion, ;.R.
!o. "%F2, 1ul& 2", ,""#, the minimum penalt& that can 'e imposed on appellant should 'e /ithin the range of prision correccional.
8E9R9@6R9, the 7ecision appealed from is )@@.RM97 /ith the modification that appellant shall suffer an indeterminate penalt& of
@65R 2#3 &ears and T86 223 da&s of prision correccional, as minimum, to 9.;ET 23 &ears and 6!9 2,3 da& of prision ayor, as
ma?imum.
(6 6R79R97.