GR 94953; (September, 1994) (Digest)

G.R. No. 94953 September 5, 1994
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Armando de Lara y Galaro, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Armando de Lara was charged with violating Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, for selling prohibited drugs. The Information alleged that on January 9, 1987, in Manila, he willfully and unlawfully sold or offered for sale two foils and one plastic bag of flowering tops of marijuana. He pleaded not guilty. The prosecution’s evidence established that following surveillance operations on December 15 and 17, 1986, which confirmed drug-pushing activities by appellant’s group, a buy-bust operation was conducted on January 9, 1987. Pfc. Martin Orolfo, Jr., acting as a poseur-buyer, was introduced to appellant by a confidential informant. Appellant asked how much would be bought, and upon being told “Two foils,” he accepted a marked twenty-peso bill, went inside his house, returned with two foils of marijuana, and handed them to Orolfo. Upon sensing the police presence, appellant tried to retrieve the foils, a scuffle ensued, and he ran inside his house with Orolfo in pursuit. Appellant was subdued inside his house, where he admitted to keeping more prohibited drugs and pointed to a blue plastic bag containing marijuana. The seized items tested positive for marijuana. Appellant denied the sale, claiming the drugs were planted and that he was arrested without a warrant while fetching his son. The trial court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine.

ISSUE

The main issues raised on appeal were: (1) the legality of appellant’s arrest and the seizure of the prohibited drugs from his house; and (2) whether he was assisted by counsel during custodial interrogation.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. It held that the warrantless arrest was lawful because appellant was caught in flagrante delicto selling marijuana during a valid buy-bust operation, pursuant to Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. The warrantless entry into his house and seizure of the plastic bag of marijuana were also valid as a contemporaneous search incident to a lawful arrest within the immediate vicinity. However, the Court agreed that appellant was not assisted by counsel during custodial investigation when he was made to sign certain documents (the photocopy of the marked money, Receipt of Property Seized, and Booking and Information Sheet), rendering these documents inadmissible. This did not affect the conviction because other evidence, particularly the detailed testimonies of the apprehending officers, adequately established his guilt. Regarding the penalty, the Court applied the favorable provisions of the then-recent Republic Act No. 7659, which reduced the penalties for drug offenses. Since the quantity of marijuana seized was not specified but was below 750 grams, and resolving doubts in favor of appellant, it was treated as between 250 to 499 grams, warranting a penalty of prision mayor. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court modified the sentence to an indeterminate penalty of four years and two days of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight years and one day of prision mayor, as maximum. The decision was affirmed with this modification.