G.R. No. 103632 September 1, 1993
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Rogelio Mortos y Tolentino, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On January 5, 1990, an informant reported to the Criminal Investigation Service in Cainta, Rizal about a person selling marijuana in Sitio Ruhat, Mambugan, Antipolo, Rizal. A buy-bust team was organized, composed of C1C Rogelio Dado, Sgt. Romeo Savillo, C1C Manuel Mercader, and C2C Ronald Villacruzes. The team, accompanied by the informant, proceeded to the location. C1C Manuel Mercader acted as the poseur-buyer. He approached accused-appellant Rogelio Mortos at a sari-sari store, inquired about marijuana, and upon receiving an affirmative answer, handed him five marked twenty-peso bills. Mortos left, retrieved a plastic bag containing 50 grams of marijuana from the store, and handed it to Mercader. Mercader then gave a pre-arranged signal, leading to Mortos’s arrest. The marked money and the marijuana tea bags were confiscated and presented as evidence. Mortos denied the sale, claiming he was merely buying cigarettes when arrested and was forced to sign a document and the bills at the police station. The Regional Trial Court convicted Mortos of violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act) and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of P20,000.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court committed a reversible error in admitting the tea bags of marijuana and the twenty-peso bills in evidence, which effectively questions the legality of the warrantless arrest and the subsequent search and seizure.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Court held that the arrest was lawful as it was effected during a valid buy-bust operation where Mortos was caught in flagrante delicto selling marijuana. A warrantless arrest is lawful under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court when a person is apprehended in the act of committing an offense. Consequently, the search incidental to that lawful arrest was also valid under Section 12, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court, allowing the seizure of items that may be used as proof of the commission of an offense. The marijuana and marked money were therefore admissible as evidence. The Court found the testimonies of the arresting officers credible and entitled to the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty, while Mortos’s uncorroborated denial could not overcome the clear evidence of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.