G.R. No. 120431 April 1, 1998
RODOLFO ESPANO, accused-petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Rodolfo Espano was charged with illegal possession of marijuana under the Dangerous Drugs Act. The prosecution evidence, based on the testimony of Pat. Romeo Pagilagan, established that on July 14, 1991, police officers conducted a buy-bust operation in Manila based on reports of drug pushing. They saw petitioner selling “something” to another person. After the buyer left, the officers approached petitioner, identified themselves, frisked him, and found two plastic cellophane tea bags of marijuana. When asked if he had more, petitioner replied there was more in his house. The officers went to his residence and found ten more cellophane tea bags. The forensic chemist confirmed the substance was marijuana, weighing 5.5 grams total. Petitioner, by way of defense, claimed he was sleeping at home when arrested, and the police were looking for his brother-in-law. The trial court convicted petitioner, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.

ISSUE

The main issues are: (1) the admissibility of the seized evidence; (2) the credibility of witnesses and the presumption of regularity in official duty versus the presumption of innocence; (3) the effect of the prosecution’s failure to present the informant; and (4) the proper penalty to be imposed.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition but modified the penalty. It held:
1. The two plastic bags of marijuana seized from petitioner’s person during the buy-bust arrest were admissible as fruits of a lawful warrantless arrest under Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the Rules of Court, as he was caught in flagrante delicto.
2. The ten plastic bags seized from his house, however, were inadmissible. The warrantless search of his house was not incidental to a lawful arrest, as the arrest occurred outside, and the house was beyond his immediate control, violating constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.
3. The trial court’s findings on witness credibility are respected. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by the police officers stands, absent proof of ill motive. Petitioner’s defenses of alibi and frame-up were weak and unproven.
4. The prosecution’s failure to present the informant was not fatal, as the apprehending officer’s testimony was credible and sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
5. Applying the favorable provisions of Republic Act No. 7659, since the quantity of marijuana was less than 750 grams, the penalty is modified. Petitioner is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of two (2) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as maximum.