G.R. No. 93708 ; May 15, 1991
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MELVIN ODICTA y BETITA alias “Boyet,” NILO CELUBRICO y CAPANAS, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Melvin Odicta and Nilo Celubrico were charged with selling marijuana in violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. The prosecution evidence established that on March 6, 1989, a NARCOM team conducted a buy-bust operation in Iloilo City based on a tip. Posing as a buyer, CIC Freddie Cartel approached Celubrico, expressed a desire to “score,” and handed him marked money. Celubrico took the money to Odicta at a nearby store, who then provided a plastic pouch of marijuana. Celubrico handed the pouch to Cartel, who gave a pre-arranged signal, leading to the immediate arrest of both appellants by the other agents. Forensic examination confirmed the substance was marijuana.
The appellants presented a different version, claiming they were arbitrarily arrested without any drug transaction occurring. Odicta alleged he was seized while playing a computer game, and Celubrico stated he was merely buying sugar at the store when arrested. They asserted the evidence was planted and that they were maltreated after refusing to admit ownership of the drugs. The trial court rejected their defense, convicted them, and sentenced each to life imprisonment and a fine.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) whether the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt; (2) whether the warrantless arrest and subsequent search were lawful; and (3) whether the appellants were instigated rather than lawfully entrapped.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. On the first issue, the Court found the prosecution’s evidence, primarily the credible testimony of the NARCOM agents on the buy-bust operation, sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The non-presentation of the informant was not fatal, as his testimony would have been merely corroborative. The defense of denial could not prevail over the positive identification by the arresting officers.
On the legality of the arrest and search, the Court ruled these were valid under the rules on warrantless arrest. The appellants were caught in flagrante delicto selling marijuana during a legitimate entrapment operation. Under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, a peace officer may arrest without a warrant any person committing an offense in their presence. The search that yielded the marked money and drugs was a valid incident to that lawful arrest under Section 12, Rule 126, making the seized items admissible as evidence.
Finally, the Court distinguished between permissible entrapment and illegal instigation. The operation here constituted entrapment, where the criminal intent originated from the appellants themselves. The NARCOM agents merely provided an opportunity to commit the offense and did not induce or instigate its commission. Therefore, the defense of instigation was untenable. Finding no reversible error, the trial court’s judgment was affirmed in toto.