G.R. No.

171729               July 28, 2008

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,

vs.
RICARDO BOHOL y CABRINO, Appellant.

DECISION

QUISUMBING, J.:

On appeal is the Decision 1 dated September 23, 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CR-HC No. 01247 affirming the Decision 2 dated March 7, 2003 of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 35, in Criminal Cases Nos. 02-205461 and 02-
205462. The RTC had convicted appellant Ricardo Bohol (Bohol) of violating Sections
11 (3)3 and 5,4 Article II, respectively, of Republic Act No. 9165 5 also known as the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

On August 7, 2002, two Informations6 were filed against Bohol before the RTC of
Manila, Branch 35, for violations of Rep. Act No. 9165.

In Criminal Case No. 02-205461, involving the violation of Section 11 (3), Article II of
Rep. Act No. 9165, the information reads as follows:

That on or about August 2, 2002, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused,
without being authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession and under his custody and
control three (3) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline
substance commonly known as "shabu" weighing zero point zero four eight (0.048)
gram, zero point zero three five (0.035) gram, and zero point zero three five (0.035)
gram, respectively, which, after a laboratory examination, gave positive results for
methylamphetamine (sic) hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW.7

In Criminal Case No. 02-205462, for violation of Section 5 of the same law, the
information reads as follows:

That on or about August 2, 2002, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused,
without being authorized by law to sell, administer, deliver, transport or distribute any
dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell or attempt to
sell, or offer for sale for ₱100.00 and deliver to PO2 Ferdinand Estrada, a poseur buyer,
one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance
commonly known as "shabu" weighing zero point zero five four (0.054) gram, which
substance, after a qualitative examination, gave positive results for methamphetamine
hydrochloride, which is a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.8

The antecedent facts in these cases are as follows.

On August 2, 2002, at around 8:30 p.m., a confidential informant came to the police
station and tipped P/Sr. Insp. Jessie Nitullano that a certain Ricardo Bohol is engaged in
illegal drug trade in Isla Puting Bato, Tondo, Manila. P/Sr. Insp. Nitullano then formed a
team of six police operatives to verify the informant’s tip, and, if found positive, to launch
then and there a buy-bust entrapment of Bohol. PO2 Ferdinand Estrada was assigned
to act as poseur buyer, and he was provided with a marked ₱100-bill as buy-bust
money.

Between 9:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. of the same day, the team proceeded to the site of
their operation. Guided by the informant, PO2 Estrada proceeded to the house of Bohol,
whom they saw standing beside the stairs of his house. Following a short introduction,
PO2 Estrada and the informant told Bohol of their purpose. Bohol asked, "How much?"
to which PO2 Estrada replied, "Piso lang" (meaning ₱100 worth of shabu) and handed
to the former the marked ₱100-bill. In turn, Bohol gave PO2 Estrada a plastic sachet
containing white crystalline granules which the latter suspected to be shabu. The illicit
transaction having been consummated, PO2 Estrada gave to his companions their pre-
arranged signal. Emerging from their hiding places, PO2 Luisito Gutierrez and his
companions arrested Bohol. PO2 Gutierrez frisked Bohol and recovered from him the
buy-bust money and three plastic sachets containing similar white crystalline granules
suspected to be shabu.

Consequently, the police officers brought Bohol to the police station and the confiscated
four plastic sachets of white crystalline substance were subjected to laboratory
examination. The specimens were confirmed to be methamphetamine hydrochloride,
commonly known as shabu.

Upon arraignment, Bohol entered a plea of "not guilty" to both charges. Thereafter, trial
on the merits ensued.

On March 7, 2003, the trial court rendered the assailed Decision, the dispositive portion
of which reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered:

(1) In Criminal Case No. 02-205461, pronouncing accused RICARDO BOHOL y

CABRINO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of possession of a total of 0.118 gram
of [methamphetamine] hydrochloride without authority of law, penalized under
Section 11 (3) of Republic Act No. 9165, and sentencing the said accused to the
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from twelve (12) years and one (1) day,
as minimum, to fifteen (15) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of
₱300,000.00, plus the costs.
 (2) In Criminal Case No. 02-205462, pronouncing the same accused RICARDO
BOHOL y CABRINO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of selling 0.054 gram of
[methamphetamine] hydrochloride without authority of law, penalized under
Section 5 of the same Republic Act No. 9165, and sentencing the said accused
to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of ₱5,000,000.00, plus the costs.

In the service of his sentence in Criminal Case No. 02-205461, the time during which
the accused had been under preventive imprisonment should be credited in his favor
provided that he had agreed voluntarily in writing to abide with the same disciplinary
rules imposed on convicted prisoner. Otherwise, he should be credited with four-fifths
(4/5) only of the time he had been under preventive imprisonment.

Exhibits B and B-1, consisting of four sachets of shabu, are ordered forfeited and
confiscated in favor of the Government. Within ten (10) days following the promulgation
of this judgment, the Branch Clerk of this Court is ordered to turn over, under proper
receipt, the drug involved in this case to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
(PDEA) for proper disposal.

SO ORDERED.9

Since one of the penalties imposed by the trial court is life imprisonment, the cases
were forwarded to this Court for automatic review. On June 15, 2005, this Court
transferred the cases to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review pursuant to this
Court’s decision in People v. Mateo.10

In a Decision dated September 23, 2005, the Court of Appeals denied the appeal and
affirmed the decision of the trial court with modification, so that the penalty in Criminal
Case No. 02-205461 should be imprisonment for 12 years, as minimum, to 14 years, 8
months and 1 day, as maximum. Bohol’s Motion for Reconsideration was likewise
denied by the appellate court. Thus, Bohol filed a notice of appeal.

By Resolution11 dated June 14, 2006, this Court required the parties to file their
respective supplemental briefs if they so desire. Bohol and the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG), however, manifested that they are adopting their briefs before the
appellate court. Hence, we shall resolve the instant appeal on the basis of the
arguments of the parties in said briefs.

In his appellant’s brief, Bohol assigns the following errors:

I.

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THE ACCUSED-

APPELLANT’S SEARCH AND ARREST AS ILLEGAL.

II.
 THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-
APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE
PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. 12

Simply stated, the issues are: (1) whether Bohol’s arrest and the search on his person
were illegal; and (2) whether the trial court erred in convicting Bohol despite the
absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

On the first issue, Bohol claims that his arrest was illegal since he could not have
committed, nor was he about to commit, a crime as he was peacefully sleeping when he
was arrested without a warrant. Consequently, the search conducted by the police
officers was not incidental to a lawful warrantless arrest, and the confiscated shabu
obtained from the search was inadmissible as evidence against him.

For the appellee, the OSG maintains that the arrest of Bohol as well as the search on
his person is legal. The OSG stresses that the search made on the person of Bohol was
incidental to a lawful arrest which was made when he was caught in flagrante delicto.
Further, the OSG maintains that at the time of Bohol’s arrest, the police officers had
probable cause to suspect that a crime had been committed since they had received a
tip from a confidential informant of the existence of illegal drug trade in the said place.

Bohol’s arguments are bereft of merit.

The arrest of Bohol is legal. The Constitution proscribes unreasonable arrests and
provides in the Bill of Rights that no arrest, search and seizure can be made without a
valid warrant issued by competent judicial authority. 13 However, it is a settled exception
to the rule that an arrest made after an entrapment operation does not require a
warrant. Such warrantless arrest is considered reasonable and valid under Rule 113,
Section 5(a) of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, which states:

Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.–A peace officer or a private person may,
without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

xxxx

In the present case, the arresting officers were justified in arresting Bohol as he had just
committed a crime when he sold the shabu to PO2 Estrada. A buy-bust operation is a
form of entrapment which has repeatedly been accepted to be a valid means of
arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law.

Considering the legality of Bohol’s warrantless arrest, the subsequent warrantless

search that resulted in the seizure of the shabu found in his person is likewise valid. In a
legitimate warrantless arrest, the arresting police officers are authorized to search and
seize from the offender (1) any dangerous weapons and (2) the things which may be
used as proof of the commission of the offense. 14 The constitutional proscription against
warrantless searches and seizures admits of certain exceptions. This Court has ruled
that the following instances constitute valid warrantless searches and seizures: (1)
search incident to a lawful arrest; (2) search of a moving motor vehicle; (3) search in
violation of customs laws; (4) seizure of the evidence in plain view; (5) search when the
accused himself waives his right against unreasonable searches and seizures; (6) stop
and frisk; and (7) exigent and emergency circumstances. 15

As to the second issue, Bohol contends that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. He faults the trial court for giving full faith and credence to
the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. He asserts that the only reason why he
was arrested was because he was the overseer of a "video-carrera". The police officers
filed the illegal drug trade and possession against him because they failed to find any
evidence to have him tried for overseeing a "video-carrera" place. Lastly, he laments the
failure of the prosecution to present the confidential informant as a witness during the
trial, thereby preventing him from confronting said witness directly.

The OSG counters that the prosecution established Bohol’s guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. The police officers who testified against Bohol were not shown to have been
actuated by improper motives, nor were they shown not properly performing their duty.
Thus, their affirmative testimony proving Bohol’s culpability must be respected and must
perforce prevail. Moreover, the findings of the trial court on the issue of credibility of
witnesses are generally not disturbed by the appellate court and this Court, since it is
the trial court that had the opportunity to appraise firsthand the demeanor of the
witness.

We agree with the OSG. This Court discerns no improper motive on the part of the
police officers that would impel them to fabricate a story and falsely implicate Bohol in
such a serious offense. In the absence of any evidence of the policemen’s improper
motive, their testimony is worthy of full faith and credit. Also, courts generally give full
faith and credit to officers of the law, for they are presumed to have performed their
duties in a regular manner. Accordingly, in entrapment cases, credence is given to the
narration of an incident by prosecution witnesses who are officers of the law and
presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner in the absence of clear
and convincing evidence to the contrary. 16

Moreover, we find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the trial court. The settled
rule is that the evaluation of the testimonies of witnesses by the trial court is entitled to
the highest respect because such court has the direct opportunity to observe the
witnesses’ demeanor and manner of testifying and thus, is in a better position to assess
their credibility.17

Lastly, as ruled by the appellate court, Bohol cannot insist on the presentation of the
informant. During trial, the informant’s presence is not a requisite in the prosecution of
drug cases. The appellate court held that police authorities rarely, if ever, remove the
cloak of confidentiality with which they surround their poseur-buyers and informers since
their usefulness will be over the moment they are presented in court. Further, what is
material to the prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the
transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the
corpus delicti. Both requirements were sufficiently proven in this case. The police
officers were able to testify positively and categorically that the transaction or sale
actually took place. The subject shabu was likewise positively identified by the
prosecution when presented in court. Hence, we agree that Bohol’s guilt has been
established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

Finally, the modification made by the Court of Appeals in the penalty imposed by the
RTC in Criminal Case No. 02-205461 ought to be deleted. Section 1 of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law 18 provides that when the offense is punished by a law
other than the Revised Penal Code, "the court shall sentence the accused to an
indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum
fixed by law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by
the same." Hence, the penalty originally imposed by the RTC of imprisonment from 12
years and 1 day, as minimum, to 15 years as maximum, and to pay a fine of ₱300,000
is correct and must be sustained.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated September 23, 2005 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01247 is hereby AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION, so that the original penalty imposed in the Decision dated March 7,
2003 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 35, in Criminal Case No. 02-205461
as well as No. 02-205462 is SUSTAINED. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.