GR 171729; (July, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 171729; July 28, 2008
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. RICARDO BOHOL y CABRINO, Appellant.
FACTS
On August 2, 2002, acting on a tip, a police team conducted a buy-bust operation in Tondo, Manila. PO2 Ferdinand Estrada acted as poseur-buyer and approached appellant Ricardo Bohol. After a brief conversation where Estrada expressed his intent to buy, Bohol asked “How much?” Estrada handed him a marked ₱100 bill in exchange for one plastic sachet of suspected shabu. Upon the consummation of the sale, Estrada signaled his team, who arrested Bohol. A subsequent body search yielded the buy-bust money and three more plastic sachets of suspected shabu. Laboratory tests confirmed all four sachets contained methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Bohol for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Sections 5 and 11(3), respectively, of Republic Act No. 9165. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Bohol appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the warrantless arrest and search were invalid and that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
ISSUE
Whether the warrantless arrest of Bohol and the subsequent seizure of the drugs were valid, and whether the prosecution successfully established his guilt for the crimes charged.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The warrantless arrest was valid as it was effected during a legitimate buy-bust operation, which is an instance of an in flagrante delicto arrest. A buy-bust operation is a recognized form of entrapment where the accused is caught in the act of committing an offense. The search incident to that lawful arrest, which yielded the three additional sachets, was likewise valid.
The Court found the prosecution successfully established all elements of the crimes. For illegal sale, it proved the transaction occurred where the poseur-buyer received the shabu from Bohol in exchange for marked money. For illegal possession, it proved Bohol was in possession of the three other sachets without legal authority. The integrity and identity of the seized drugs were preserved through an unbroken chain of custody, as evidenced by the testimonies of the arresting officers and the forensic chemist. The defense of denial and frame-up proffered by Bohol was deemed weak and unsupported by clear and convincing evidence, and could not prevail over the positive identification by the police officers.