376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Castiller

*

G.R. No. 87783. August 6, 1990.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

ADELINA CASTILLER y CASTRO, defendant-appellant.

Dangerous Drugs Act; Buy-bust operation; definition of; nature of.—The

buy-bust operation is a recognized means of entrapment for the apprehension
of drug pushers [People v. Gatong-o, G.R. No. 78698, December 29, 1988, 168
SCRA 716]. This is so because the very characteristic of prohibited drugs—
i.e., their being easily concealed and transferred without threat of detection in
small and handy quantities,—allows its sale, use and delivery with relative
facility. Contrary to appellant's contention, no surveillance of the area or the
subject of the entrapment is necessary where the police officers had, as in this
case, reasonable ground to believe that the informer and the information
given were reliable, and that a crime is indeed being perpetrated. The buy-
bust operation was formed by the police officers precisely to test the veracity
of the tip and in order to apprehend the perpetrator, if be in fact commits the
offense, before he further endangers society. Besides, the tip given describing
an old woman keeping a store at North Daang Hari as a drug pusher
sufficiently and accurately points to the appellant. There was no arbitrariness
on the part of the poseur-buyer in approaching appellant, who exactly fit
every detail of the description given.

_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
 VOL. 188, AUGUST 6, 1990 377

People vs. Castiller

Same; Same; The failure to mark the bill is not fatal to the case; Reasons.
—Be that as it may, the failure to mark the bill is not fatal to the case
because the Dangerous Drugs Act punishes "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 . . . [Italics supplied]." In this case, the
police officer sought to buy two sticks of marijuana and his offer was accepted
by appellant who produced and delivered the same. The crime was
consummated by the mere delivery of the prohibited goods even without
money changing hands.
Same; Same; Criminal Procedure; Arrest without warrant; Case at bar;
The appellant's arrest was lawfully effected without need of a warrant.—Both
of the above-cited instances of a lawful warrantless arrest are attendant in
this case. Appellant was caught in flagrante delicto delivering to the poseur-
buyer two (2) sticks of marijuana, The offense was committed in the presence
of the police officer, and therefore the latter had personal knowledge of the
commission of the offense. Under the circumstances, appellant's arrest was
lawfully effected without need of a warrant.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The search and seizure must be supported by a
valid warrant is not an absolute rule; Exceptions.—That searches and
seizures must be supported by a valid warrant is not an absolute rule
[Manipon, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 58889, July 31, 1986, 143 SCRA
267]. Among the exceptions granted by law is a search incidental to a lawful
arrest under Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, which
provides that "[a] person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous
weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an
offense, without a search warrant." In such an instance, a contemporaneous
search may be conducted upon the person of the arrestee and the immediate
vicinity where the arrest was made [Nolasco v. Paño, G.R. No. 69803,
January 30, 1987, 147 SCRA 509], as was done in this case. The inclusion of
the seized items in the evidence for the prosecution cannot be challenged as
they were seized in conformity with the provision on lawful searches.

APPEAL from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Metro
Manila, Br. 156.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee,
Public Attorney's Office for defendant-appellant.
378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Castiller

CORTÉS, J.:
Appellant Adelina Castiller xx Castro was charged with and convicted
of violation of Section 4, Art. II of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended,
otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act, under an information
which read:
That on or about the 17th day of April, 1988, in the Municipality of Taguig,
Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the said accused, without having been authorized by law, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give away to
another two (2) foils of dried marijuana fruiting tops and was found to be in
possession of the following: one (1) Ajinomoto Plastic bag containing 545
grams of dried marijuana fruiting tops, ten (10) sticks of marijuana cigarette
wrapped with white paper and five (5) newspaper wrappers each with dried
marijuana fruiting tops having a total weight of 20.77 grams, which is a
prohibited drug.
Contrary to law [Rollo, p. 4].

Upon arraignment, appellant, assisted by counsel, entered a plea of

"not guilty" to the offense charged. Trial ensued with the prosecution
and the defense presenting their own witnesses and evidence to
support their respective versions of the events leading to the arrest of
the accused-appellant.
According to the prosecution witnesses, composed mainly of police
officers, at around nine o'clock in the morning of April 18, 1988, the
anti-narcotics intelligence division of the Taguig Police Station
received information from an undisclosed caller that marijuana was
being sold by an old woman in a small store in North Daang Hari
Street, Taguig [TSN, June 29,1988, p. 4; TSN, October 7, 1988, p. 2].
Immediately, Capt. Ferdinand Santos organized a team composed of
police officers Felixberto Maog (team leader), Jesus Chan, Joselito
Lintad, Jessie Pasion, Ruel Viring and Carlos Mendibel in order to
conduct a buy-bust operation [TSN, June 29,1988, p. 4]. Pat.
Mendibel, assigned to act as poseur-buyer, was briefed by Capt.
Santos separately from the other members of the team who were to
serve as backup [TSN, August 2, 1988, pp. 3-4], and was later handed
a twenty-peso bill to be used to purchase marijuana in the buybust
operation [TSN, June 29,1988, p. 3; TSN, August 10,1988,
 VOL. 188, AUGUST 6, 1990 379
People vs. Castiller

p. 14].
Around noontime, the plainclothes team arrived at North Daang
Hari. Indeed, they found an old woman in a small store in No. 303
North Daang Hari, which Pat. Jessie Pasion pointed out to Mendibel
as the subject of the operation. The other members of the team in the
meantime positioned themselves some fifteen (15) meters away from
the store [TSN, October 7, 1988, p. 2]. Pat. Mendibel went to the
store, and said to the appellant: "La, paiskor ng dalawang foil" [TSN,
July 15, 1988, p. 33. Appellant went inside the store and came back
with two (2) foils of marijuana which she gave to Pat Mendibel.
Taking the marijuana foils, Pat. Mendibel introduced himself as a
police officer [TSN, July 15, 1988, pp. 3-4]. Appellant, upon learning
that her "customer" was in fact a police officer, scampered into the
back of her store and locked herself inside even before Pat. Mendibel
could hand over the twenty-peso bill in payment of the foils of
marijuana [TSN, August 10,1988, p. 15], Pat. Mendibel immediately
gave the pre-arranged signal to inform his teammates that the
operation had indeed yielded marijuana, and to get their assistance in
arresting the appellant [TSN, October 7, 1988, p. 3], The police
officers knocked at the door but appellant refused to open the door.
Later, however, she voluntarily opened the door when the police
officers, still knocking, asked permission to be allowed inside her
store [TSN, August 10,1988, pp. 16-17].
When the police officers went inside, appellant pointed to a large
gray container placed beside some cases of softdrink [TSN, August
10,1988, p. 4]. They found a hole at the bottom of the large gray
plastic container, and stored inside were a plastic "Ajinomoto" bag
containing substances which appeared to be marijuana leaves, ten
(10) sticks of what appeared to be marijuana cigarettes, five (5) foils
of what appeared to be marijuana leaves wrapped in newspaper, six
(6) packs of "Capitol" brand rolling paper and a red leatherette bag
[Exhibits "G", "C", "D", "E", "H-1" "H-1" to "H-6" and "H" respectively].
Appellant and the confiscated evidence were brought to the police
station. Pat. Santiago Villa, the officer assigned to conduct the
investigation, informed appellant of her constitutional rights. Stating
only her name and her desire to consult her lawyer [TSN, August 25,
1988, p. 5], appellant opted to remain
380 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Castiller

silent.
The seized specimen, along with a letter-request dated April
18,1988 signed by Capt. Ferdinand Santos, were then brought to the
PC Crime Laboratory at Camp Crame so that tests could be
conducted on the substances which appeared to be marijuana.
The laboratory analysis conducted by P/Capt. Lina C. Sarmiento
found the specimens to be "positive for marijuana, a prohibited drug"
[Chemistry Report No. D-348-88, Exhibit "A"; and Certificate of
Laboratory Result, Exhibit "J"] i.e., a plastic bag containing 545
grams dried marijuana fruiting tops, ten (10) sticks of marijuana
cigarettes wrapped with white paper, and the five (5) newspaper
wrappers each with dried marijuana fruiting tops having a total
weight of 20.77 grams.
On the other hand, the defense presented a different version of the
events that transpired.
According to appellant, she lived in a squatter area where the only
source of water was an artesian well located one house away from her
store [TSN, February 14, 1989, p. 4]. People usually had to queue up
in order to get water from said well. Those living nearby habitually
left their water containers at appellant's store which they later
claimed when the need arose [TSN, February 14,1989, p. 4].
Appellant testified that on the night before the alleged buy-bust
operation took place, one "Magda" was the last person to leave her
water container at the store [TSN, January 10,1989, p. 2]. The next
day, at around 11:30 in the morning, a group of men, strangers to
appellant, approached her in her store. One of them suddenly held
her at her right side and informed her that she would be brought to
the police precinct. Appellant protested and asked if he had a
warrant, but the man did not answer her [TSN, January 10, 1989, p.
3]. The others went inside her store and began searching the place.
Appellant was brought to the police precinct while the others
continued searching her store [TSN, January 10,1989, pp. 3-4],
Appellant denied knowledge of the articles inside the gray container
which was seized from her store but she admitted that she recognized
the gray container to be Magda's [TSN, January 10,1989, p. 4].
Two other witnesses were presented for the defense. Carmelita
Ramos testified that, like some five other neighbors of ap-
 VOL. 188, AUGUST 6, 1990 381
People vs. Castiller

pellant, she usually left her water container at the latter's store, and
claimed it when she needed to fetch water from the well again [TSN,
February 14, 1989, pp. 3-4]. On the other hand, Rebecca De los Santos
testified that in the evening of April 17, 1988, she saw a certain
woman leave her water container at appellant's store, and heard the
name "Magda" mentioned [TSN, February 14,1989, p. 2].
The trial court, giving credence to the evidence of the prosecution,
found that appellant was caught in flagrante delicto delivering
marijuana, Furthermore, the trial court held that appellant's
possession of considerable quantities of marijuana indicates the
intention to sell, distribute or deliver the same, and that she was
"really engaged in the illicit trade of marijuana." The dispositive
portion of the jugment of conviction reads:
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby sentences the accused, ADELINA
CASTILLER Y CASTRO to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with all
its accessory penalties, to pay a fine of P20,000 and to pay the costs.
In the service of her sentence, the accused shall be credited in full with the
period of her preventive imprisonment.
Pursuant to Section 20, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended,
let the 545 grams of dried marijuana fruiting tops, ten (10) sticks of
marijuana cigarette and another 20.77 grams of dried marijuana fruiting tops
in five (5) newspaper wrappers subject matter of this case be turned over to
the Dangerous Drugs Board Custodian, NBI, to be disposed of according to
law.
Pursuant to Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code, the gray plastic
container (Exhibit "G"), the red leatherette bag (Exhibit "H") and six (6) packs
of rolling paper (Exhibits "H-1" to "H-6") are hereby ordered confiscated and
forfeited in favor of the Government.
SO ORDERED.

Appellant assails the decision of the trial court in this appeal,

assigning the following errors:
I

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE

TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES AND IN TO-
TOTALLY DISREGARDING THE VERSION OF THE DEFENSE.
382 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Castiller

II

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED DESPITE

HER UNLAWFUL ARREST AND ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE
UPON HER PREMISES.

III

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT

GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF
VIOLATION OF SECTION 4, ARTICLE II OF R.A. 6425, AS AMENDED.
[Appellant's Brief, p. 1.]

Ultimately, this case presents only one issue: whether or not

appellant was proven guilty of the crime charged beyond reasonable
doubt.
After a thorough perusal of the evidence of both parties, we find
that indeed, as sufficiently established by the prosecution, appellant
is guilty of the crime charged.
The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses substantially covered
the circumstances of each and every stage of the crime, and the
resulting arrest, search and seizure. The buy-bust operation team
leader (Pfc. Felixberto Maog) testified as to the circumstances leading
to and the formation of the entrapment scheme. The poseur-buyer
(Pat. Mendibel) positively identified appellant as the woman who
delivered two (2) foils of marijuana to him, and along with a member
of the "back-up" (Pat. Jesus Chan), testified as to the incidental
search conducted on the store, and the prohibited drugs thereon. The
case investigator (Pat. Santiago Villa) testified on the investigation
made on appellant and the examination of the seized articles after the
arrest, search and seizure, and the forensic chemist (P/Capt Lina
Sarmiento) found the seized articles submitted for examination to be
positive for marijuana.
We find their testimonies to be clear, lucid, straightforward and
uncontradicted on all material points.
There is nothing in the record to suggest that the police officers
were compelled by any motive other than to accomplish their mission
to capture appellant in the execution of the crime. The presumption
being that police officers perform their duties regularly in the absence
of any evidence to the contrary [Rule
 VOL. 188, AUGUST 6, 1990 383
People vs. Castiller

131, Section 5 (m), Rules of Court; People v. Natipravat, G.R. No.

69876, November 13, 1986, 145 SCRA 483; People v. De Jesus, G.R.
Nos. 71942-3, November 13, 1986, 145 SCRA 521; People v. Claudio,
G.R. No. 72564, April 15, 1988, 160 SCRA 646], their testimonies are
entitled to full faith and credence [People v. Patog, G.R. No. 69620,
September 24, 1986, 144 SCRA 429].
On the other hand, the defense did not put a substantial defense
other than the denial of the accused. It is well-settled that mere
denials cannot prevail against positive identification of appellant as
the seller of the prohibited substances [People v. Khan, G.R. No.
71863, May 23, 1988, 161 SCRA 406; People v. Paco, G.R. No. 76893,
February 27, 1989, 170 SCRA 681].
Furthermore, the testimonies of defense witnesses Rebecca de los
Santos and Carmelita Ramos do not buttress appellant's case. At
best, they present minor details which neither substantiate
appellant's denial of the charges nor strengthen the claim of an arrest
and search totally wanting in legal basis.
Curiously, appellant never made any effort to locate "Magda", the
alleged owner of the container filled with the prohibited subtances, in
order to have her arrested. Certainly in a case where her own life and
liberty were at stake, the victim of a wrongful accusation would have
earnestly, nay even desperately, sought ways to vindicate herself by
at least assisting the police in order to have the true offender
apprehended. Appellant's inaction becomes all the more baffling
considering that, by her own admission, she had known "Magda" for
about a year, they lived on the same street (North Daang Hari),
"Magda" fetched water at the artesian well just one house away from
appellant's store everyday, and even bought things from the store
[TSN, January 10,1989, pp. 2, 6].
Collaterally, appellant would now attack the decision by putting at
issue the validity of the buy-bust operation, the failure of prosecution
to produce the "buy-bust money", and the legality of the arrest and
the incidental search and seizure,
Appellant underscores in its arguments the admission by the police
officers that at the time they set out to conduct the operation, they did
not know who their exact "target" was, having acted solely on a tip
given by a caller who merely described the marijuana seller to be an
old woman in a store on
384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People us. Castiller

North Daang Hari, but gave no specific name. From this allegation,
the defense concluded that no buy-bust operation had in fact taken
place, and that the prosecution merely concocted the story in order to
justify an unlawful arrest resulting from an "intense enthusiasm to
respond to the unidentified caller" [Appellant's Brief, pp. 7-8].
This contention is devoid of merit.
The buy-bust operation is a recognized means of entrapment for
the apprehension of drug pushers [People v. Gatong-o, G.R. No.
78698, December 29, 1988, 168 SCRA 716], This is so because the
very characteristic of prohibited drugs—i.e., their being easily
concealed and transferred without threat of detection in small and
handy quantities,—allows its sale, use and delivery with relative
facility. Contrary to appellant's contention, no surveillance of the area
or the subject of the entrapment is necessary where the police officers
had, as in this case, reasonable ground to believe that the informer
and the information given were reliable, and that a crime is indeed
being perpetrated. The buy-bust operation was formed by the police
officers precisely to test the veracity of the tip and in order to
apprehend the perpetrator, if he in fact commits the offense, before he
further endangers society. Besides, the tip given describing an old
woman keeping a store at North Daang Hari as a drug pusher
sufficiently and accurately points to the appellant. There was no
arbitrariness on the part of the poseurbuyer in approaching
appellant, who exactly fit every detail of the description given.
The defense further belabors its theory that no entrapment was
effected by pointing to the fact that the twenty-peso bill allegedly
used in the buy-bust operation and later submitted in evidence was
not even marked, thereby rendering the alleged buy-bust operation
all the more dubious [Appellant's s Brief; p. 8].
Again, we find no merit in this argument.
Although the alleged buy-bust money was indeed unmarked,
nevertheless, this fact alone will not suffice to weaken the
prosecution's case. Pat. Mendibel testified that he was informed by
his immediate superior who handed him the money that it was
marked [TSN, June 29,1988, p. 5: TSN, August 10,1988, p. 14].
Apparently however, Mendibel, who joined the police ser-
 VOL. 188, AUGUST 6, 1990 385
People vs. Castiller

vice barely four months earlier [TSN, June 29,1988], failed to

personally check whether it was marked. As correctly noted by the
Solicitor General, Mendibel was still a "tyro" in such operations, this
being his first drugs case [Appellee's Brief, p. 14; Rollo, p. 84], and he
was obviously unfamiliar with the manner in which buy-bust
operations are conducted.
Be that as it may, the failure to mark the bill is not fatal to the
case because the Dangerous Drugs Act punishes "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 such transactions .... [Italics
supplied]." In this case, the police officer sought to buy two sticks of
marijuana and his offer was accepted by appellant who produced and
delivered the same. The crime was consummated by the mere
delivery of the prohibited goods even without money changing hands.
As to the issue of the legality of appellant's warrantless arrest and
the warrantless search, we find that both arrest and incidental search
were made well within the bounds of the law.
The 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure provide that:
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.—A peace officer or a private
person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
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;
x x x
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person arrested
without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or
jail, and he shall be proceeded against in accordance with Rule 112, Section 7.
[Rule 113, Section 5; 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure.]

Both of the above-cited instances of a lawful warrantless arrest are

attendant in this case. Appellant was caught in flagrante delicto
delivering to the poseur-buyer two (2) sticks of marijuana. The offense
was committed in the presence of the police officer, and therefore the
latter had personal knowledge of the commission of the offense.
Under the circumstances,
386 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs, Castiller

appellant's arrest was lawfully effected without need of a warrant.

Furthermore, where, as in this case, the person to be arrested
attempts to evade the same, the Rules on Criminal Procedure allow a
peace officer, in order to make a lawful warrantless arrest, to ". . .
break into any building or enclosure in which the person to be
arrested is or is reasonably believed to be, if he is refused admittance
thereto, after he has announced his authority and purpose" [Section
11, Rule 113, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure], In the case at bar,
the police officers did not have to break into the premises since
appellant voluntarily allowed the law officers inside the store.
Therefore, the entry by the law enforcers into the store in order to
effect appellant's arrest was perfectly lawful.
As to the validity of the search conducted upon the premises of
appellant's store and the consequent seizure of incriminating
evidence found therein, this Court finds that both search and seizure
were valid.
That searches and seizures must be supported by a valid warrant
is not an absolute rule [Manipon, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
58889, July 31, 1986, 143 SCRA 267]. Among the exceptions granted
by law is a search incidental to a lawful arrest under Section 12, Rule
126 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, which provides that "[a]
person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or
anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense,
without a search warrant." In such an instance, a contemporaneous
search may be conducted upon the person of the arrestee and the
immediate vicinity where the arrest was made [Nolasco v. Paño, G.R.
No. 69803, January 30, 1987, 147 SCRA 509], as was done in this
case. The inclusion of the seized items in the evidence for the
prosecution cannot be challenged as they were seized in conformity
with the provision on lawful searches.
All told, this Court is convinced that appellant Adelina Castiller
had indeed committed the offense as charged. The assailed decision
must be upheld. The trial court aptly quoted the dictum of this Court
in the case of People v. Abedes [G.R. No. 73399, November
28,1986,146 SCRA 132]: "A drug pusher is a killer without mercy. He
poisons the mind and deadens the body. He deserves no mercy." Our
society has every right to be
 VOL, 188, AUGUST 6, 1990 387
Aboitiz Shipping Corporation vs. Court of Appeals

protected from the potential and actual harm wrought by prohibited

drugs.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

Fernan (C.J.), Gutierrez, Jr., and Feliciano, JJ., concur.

Bidin, J., On leave.

Decision affirmed.

Note.—Positive identification as the seller of marijuana leaves

prevails over the denials of the appellant. (People vs. Khan, 161 SCRA
406.)

——o0o——