G.R. No. 98060. January 27, 1997.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SATURNINA SALAZAR y PALANAS, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution’s case established that on August 23, 1988, NARCOM agents conducted a buy-bust operation in Oroquieta City. A police informant led them to the store of appellant Saturnina Salazar. Corporal Emilio de Guzman, acting as the poseur-buyer, approached Salazar, handed her a marked five-peso bill, and requested to “score.” Salazar gave him five marijuana sticks. Upon consummation of the sale, de Guzman identified himself as an agent and arrested her. Sergeant Jim Cubillan, who had been observing nearby, then entered the store and confiscated from a plastic container six additional marijuana sticks and approximately five grams of dried marijuana leaves. The seized items were later confirmed by forensic examination to be marijuana.
The defense presented a different version. Salazar testified she was sleeping when the two agents entered her house without permission, ransacked her belongings, and arrested her without any prior buy-bust transaction. Her daughter corroborated this, stating she saw the agents take her mother away after searching their house.

ISSUE

The core issues are: (1) whether the warrantless search and seizure were valid, and (2) whether the alleged violation of appellant’s right to counsel during custodial investigation warrants acquittal.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. On the first issue, the search and seizure were deemed lawful as incidental to a valid warrantless arrest following a legitimate buy-bust operation. The arrest was made immediately after the sale, which the Court found to be a credible police operation. The subsequent seizure of the additional marijuana from the plastic container within the store was justified as a search incident to a lawful arrest, as the contraband was within the appellant’s immediate control and plain view.
Regarding the second issue, the Court acknowledged that the appellant’s right to counsel during the post-arrest custodial investigation was indeed violated, as she was made to sign documents without proper assistance. However, this violation did not lead to the exclusion of the physical evidence—the marijuana sticks and leaves—which were seized independently of any confession or statement. The conviction was sustained based on the credible testimonies of the arresting officers and the corpus delicti established by the forensic evidence. The positive identification by the agents, who were presumed to have performed their duties regularly, prevailed over the appellant’s denial and frame-up claim, which the Court found unsubstantiated. The buy-bust operation was ruled to have been proven beyond reasonable doubt.