PEOPLE VS MARIANO An Affidavit of Arrest was prepared and

signed by PO1 Olleres and PO3 Razo.11

Facts: PO1 Olleres also prepared a receipt of
Acting on an informant’s tip, a buy-bust the property seized containing his and
team was formed composed of SPO1 appellants’ signatures. The buy-bust
Goñez, the team leader, with PO1 team marked the plastic sachets
Olleres as the poseur-buyer, and police containing shabu at the crime scene
back-ups, PO3 Razo, and a certain PO1 and PO1 Olleres brought the seized
Pabrigas, and an unidentified member items to the PNP Crime Laboratory. They
of the PDEA. SPO1 Goñez produced the also took photographs of the items
marked money consisting of one (1) confiscated and of appellants.
One Thousand Peso bill and six (6) One Police Inspector Josephine Macura
Hundred Peso bills. PO1 Olleres placed Clemen, a forensic chemist, found that
his initials on the marked bills. On 17 the specimen submitted to her was
October 2004, the team conducted a
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride,
buy-bust operation in the house of a otherwise known as shabu.
certain Gerry Angustia. PO1 Olleres, PO3
Razo and the asset proceeded to the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
target house and they witnessed an supports the convictions of the
ongoing pot session. They looked for appellants. It justifies the legality of the
"Galog" and they were introduced to warrantless arrest of appellants as they
Godofredo. They asked Godofredo if were caught in flagrante delicto.
they can "score." Godofredo Moreover, the OSG avers that
immediately left the house and went to appellants are estopped from
a street at the back of the house. He questioning the legality of their arrest
returned carrying two (2) sachets of having raised them only on appeal.
shabu, which he handed to PO1 Ollares.
Held:
In exchange, PO1 Olleres paid him the
One Thousand Peso marked bill. Allan We deny the appeal.
also offered PO3 Razo two (2) more
sachets of shabu. The latter asked for Appellants were charged and
the Six Hundred Peso marked bills from convicted of the crime of illegal sale of
PO1 Olleres and handed them to Allan dangerous drugs.
as payment for the shabu. After these
exchanges, they requested appellants Under Section 5, Article II of Republic
for an actual test of shabu. Godofredo Act No. 9165, the elements necessary
provided them with a tooter and for the prosecution of illegal sale of
aluminum foil. While they were testing drugs are: (1) the identities of the buyer
said shabu, they declared an arrest. and the seller, the object, and
consideration; and (2) the delivery of
the thing sold and the payment
therefor. What is material to the
prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous Q: Who is that Galog that you are
drugs is the proof that the transaction or referring to?
sale actually took place, coupled with
the presentation in court of evidence of A: Godofredo Mariano.
corpus delicti.
Q: When you reached the place of
All these elements were duly established Gerry Angustia (sic), what happened?
by the prosecution. Appellants were
caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu A: When we arrived at the scene there
during a buy-bust operation conducted was an ongoing pot session but we did
not disturb them because the subject of
our operation for the day is Godofredo
People vs
Dequina.docx Mariano and when we arrived we asked
by the buy-bust team.
who is Galog and he was introduced to
The poseur-buyer, PO1 Olleres, positively
us and so we asked him if we can buy
testified that the sale took place and
some items from him.
that appellants sold the shabu, thus:

Q: The place where you proceeded to,

A: At about 10:30 in the morning of that
Mr. Witness, is it a house?
day our team leader instructed me to
be with them in conducting a buy bust
A: It is just a small house and to our
operation.
knowledge it was being occupied by
Gerry Angustia (sic).
Q: And who was with you at that time?

Q: Mr. Witness, what happened when

A: PO3 Razo and an asset.
you were there and being introduced to
Galog?
Q: Where is the venue of the buy bust
operation?
A: We talked with him and asked him if
we can score and Godofredo Mariano
A: In the house of a certain Gerry
left the house and went to a street at
Angustia (sic).
the back of the house and when he
came back he has already with him two
Q: At what time did you proceed to said
(2) sachets of shabu.
place more or less?

Q: Now, what happened when he

A: About 10:00 o’clock in the morning,
returned with two (2) sachets of shabu?
Ma’am, we proceeded to the house of
Gerry Angustia (sic). As per information
A: Upon arrival of Godofredo Mariano
of our asset, Galog was already on that
with those two (2) sachets of shabu, we
house.
paid him one thousand (Php1,000.00)
pesos and right then and there Allan A: Yes, Ma’am.
Doringo approached us and offered to
us to buy also two (2) sachets of shabu. Q: If you are required to identify him, will
you be able to do so?
Q: Did you likewise buy the shabu
offered by Allan Doringo? A: Yes, Ma’am.

A: Yes, Ma’am, Police Officer Razo gave Q: Please go down and identify him?
Allan Doringo six hundred (Php600.00)
pesos. A: (Witness pointed to a man in black
shirt and identified as Allan Doringo
Q: Afterwards, what happened? when asked.)22

A: And right after the exchanged of Simply put, Godofredo produced two
items we requested the two (2) of them (2) plastic sachets containing shabu
to have the actual test of shabu and and gave it to PO1 Olleres in exchange
while they were testing the shabu we for P1,000.00. Also, Allan had offered
declared arrest. and given two (2) more sachets
containing shabu to PO3 Razo, who in
Q: What do you mean when you say turn, handed him P600.00. PO3 Razo
they were actually testing the shabu? corroborated the account of PO1
Olleres, to wit:
A: They tested the shabu by providing us
the totter and aluminum foil and while Q: Mr. Witness, on October 17, 2004 at
we were testing the said shabu we more or less 10:45 in the morning do you
declared arrest. still recall your whereabouts?

Q: Is accused Godofredo Mariano A: Yes, Ma’am.

present today in court?
Q: Will you please tell us where?
A: Yes, Ma’am.
A: On October 17, 2004 at 10:45 a.m.
Q: Please identify him to us? from the camp we proceeded to the
house of Gerry Angustia (sic).
A: (Witness pointed to a man in a blue
strife sweet shirt (sic) who identified Q: And what was your purpose in going
himself as Godofredo Mariano.) to the house of Gerry Angustia (sic)?

Q: What about accused Allan Doringo A: To conduct a buy bust operation.

(sic), is he present today in court?
Q: By the way, where is that house of Q: Now, before Olleres identified himself
Gerry Angustia (sic) located? as a police officer, did you already buy
the shabu from Allan Doringo?
A: At pier Uno of Zone 2, Bulan, Sorsogon
just in front of the Coast Guard. A: Godofredo Mariano sold his shabu to
PO3 David Olleres while this Allan
Q: Okay, when you proceeded to the Doringo insisted to me to buy his shabu
house of Gerry Angustia (sic) to conduct for Php600.00 pesos.
buy bust operation, who was with you at
that time? Q: And what did you do when Allan
Doringo offered you this shabu in the
A: PO3 David F. Olleres, Jr. and our amount of Php600.00.
asset.
A: I get Php600.00 from David Olleres
Q: When you proceeded to the house and paid Allan Doringo the same
of Gerry Angustia (sic) and when you amount after I received from him the
arrived at the house of Gerry Angustia shabu.
(sic) what happened next?
Q: Then what happened afterwards?
A: While at the house of Gerry Angustia
(sic), Godofredo Mariano offered to our A: Then after that we introduced
asset to taste the shabu and he also ourselves as police officers and we
offered two (2) sachets of shabu worth brought them to the camp for police
Php1,000.00 to PO3 David Olleres, Jr. investigation.
while this Allan Doringo persuaded us to
buy also two (2) sachets of shabu which Q: Are accused Allan Doringo and
was offered to PO3 Olleres who gave Godofredo Mariano present today in
him also Php600.00 pesos. court?

Q: What did Olleres do when he was A: Yes, Ma’am.

offered this shabu by Godofredo
Mariano? Q: If you are required to identify them,
will you be able to do so?
A: He received the two (2) sachets of
shabu from Godofredo Mariano and A: Yes, Ma’am.
gave Godofredo Mariano the
Php1,000.00 bill then PO3 David Olleres Q: Please point at them?
identified himself to Godofredo
Mariano. A: (The witness pointed to a man in
yellow shirt who identified himself as
Allan Doringo when asked and also the
witness pointed to a man in black shirt presented in evidence.26 Police
and identified himself as Godofredo Superintendent Leonidas Diaz Castillo
Mariano when asked.)23 attested to the veracity of the contents
of these documents.27
The result of the laboratory examination
confirmed the presence of While both appellants admitted their
methamphetamine hydrochloride on presence in the scene of the crime, they
the white crystalline substances inside both denied the existence of a buy-bust
the four (4) plastic sachets confiscated operation.
from appellants. The marked money
was presented in evidence. Thus, the The defense of denial, like alibi, has
delivery of the illicit drug to PO1 Olleres been viewed by the court with disfavor
and PO3 Razo and the receipt by for it can just as easily be concocted.
appellants of the marked money Denial in drug cases requires strong and
successfully consummated the buy-bust convincing evidence because of the
transaction. presumption that the law enforcement
agencies acted in the regular
Godofredo was further charged and performance of their official duties. Bare
convicted of illegal possession of drug denials of appellants cannot prevail
paraphernalia. The elements of illegal over the positive testimonies of the three
possession of equipment, instrument, police officers. Moreover, there is no
apparatus and other paraphernalia for evidence of any improper motive on
dangerous drugs under Section 12, the part of the police officers who
Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 are: (1) conducted the buy-bust operation to
possession or control by the accused of falsely testify against appellants.28
any equipment, apparatus or other
paraphernalia fit or intended for Appellants’ insistence on the illegality of
smoking, consuming, administering, their warrantless arrest equally lacks
injecting, ingesting, or introducing any merit. Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of
dangerous drug into the body; and (2) Court allows a warrantless arrest under
such possession is not authorized by any of the following circumstances:
law.24
Sec 5. Arrest without warrant, when
The prosecution has convincingly lawful – A peace officer or a private
established that Godofredo was in person may, without a warrant, arrest a
possession of drug paraphernalia such person:
as aluminum foil, aluminum tooter and
lighter, all of which were offered in (a) When, in his presence, the person to
evidence.25 The corresponding receipt be arrested has committed, is actually
and inventory of the seized shabu and committing, or is attempting to commit
other drug paraphernalia were likewise an offense;
 Admittedly, it is settled that the signature
(b) When an offense has just been of the accused in the "Receipt of
committed and he has probable cause Property Seized" is inadmissible in
to believe based on personal evidence if it was obtained without the
knowledge of facts or circumstances assistance of counsel. The signature of
that the person to be arrested has the accused on such a receipt is a
committed it; and declaration against his interest and a
tacit admission of the crime charged.
(c) When the person to be arrested is a However, while it is true that appellants
prisoner who has escaped from a penal signed receipt of the property seized
establishment or place where he is unassisted by counsel, this only renders
serving final judgment or is temporarily inadmissible the receipt itself.1âwphi1
confined while his case is pending, or
has escaped while being transferred In fact, in the case at bar, the
from one confinement to another. evidentiary value of the Receipt of
Property Seized is irrelevant in light of the
In the instant case, the warrantless arrest ample evidence proving appellants’
was effected under the first mode or guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The
aptly termed as in flagrante delicto. prosecution was able to prove that a
PO1 Olleres and PO3 Razo personally valid buy-bust operation was
witnessed and were in fact participants conducted to entrap appellants. The
to the buy-bust operation. After testimony of the poseur-buyer clearly
laboratory examination, the white established that the sale of shabu by
crystalline substances placed inside the appellant was consummated. The
four (4) separate plastic sachets were corpus delicti, which is the shabu, was
found positive for methamphetamine presented in court and confirmed by
hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous the other members of the buy-bust
drug. Under these circumstances, it is team. They acknowledged that they
beyond doubt that appellants were were the same drugs placed in four (4)
arrested in flagrante delicto while plastic sachets seized from appellants.29
committing a crime, in full view of the
arresting team. In fine, it has been established by proof
beyond reasonable doubt that
Anent the absence of counsel during appellants sold shabu. Under Section 5,
the execution of an inventory receipt, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the
we agree with the conclusion of the penalty of life imprisonment to death
appellate court that notwithstanding and fine ranging from P500,000.00 to
the inadmissibility of the inventory P1,000,000.00 shall be imposed upon
receipt, the prosecution has sufficiently any person, who, unless authorized by
proven the guilt of appellants, thus: law, shall sell, trade, administer,
dispense, deliver, give away to another,
distribute, dispatch in transit or transport
any dangerous drug, including any and
all species of opium poppy regardless of
the quantity and purity involved. Hence,
the trial court, as affirmed by the Court
of Appeals, correctly imposed the
penalty of life imprisonment and a fine
of P500,000.00. As to Godofredo who
was further convicted of illegal
possession of drug paraphernalia,
Section 12, Article II of Republic Act No.
9165 imposes the penalty of
imprisonment ranging from six (6)
months and one (1) day to four (4) years
and a fine ranging from Ten thousand
pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty thousand
pesos (P50,000.00) upon any person,
who unless authorized by law, shall
possess or have under his/her control
any equipment, instrument, apparatus
and any other paraphernalia fit or
intended for smoking, consuming,
administering, injecting, or introducing
any dangerous drug into the body.

Based on the foregoing rules, we also

affirm the imposition of penalties by the
trial court.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the

Decision dated 9 November 2009 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No.
03343 which, in turn, affirmed the
Decision dated 5 March 2008 of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 65,
Sorsogon City, in Criminal Cases Nos. 04-
706, 04-707, and 04-708, is AFFIRMED in
toto.

SO ORDERED.