EN BANC [G.R. No. 125299. January 22, 1999] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPI NES, plaintiff -appellee, vs. FL ORENCIO DORIA y OLADO, an! "IOLETA GADDAO y CATA#A $ %NENETH,% accused-appellants. D E C I S I O N P&NO, J.' On December 7, 1995, accused-appellants Florencio Doria y Bolado and ioleta !addao y Catama " #Nenet$# %ere c$ar&ed %it$ 'iolation o( )ection *, in relation to )ection +1 o( t$e Dan&erous Dru&s Act o( 197+1. /$e in(ormation reads0 #/$at on or about t$e 5t$ day o( December, 1995 in t$e City o( andaluyon&, 2$ilippines, a place %it$in t$e 3urisdiction o( t$is 4onorable Court, t$e abo'e-named accused, conspirin&, con(ederatin& and mutually $elpin& and aidin& one anot$er and %it$out $a'in& been aut$oried by la%, did, t$en and t$ere %ill(ully, unla%(ully and (eloniously sell, administer, deli'er and &i'e a%ay to anot$er ele'en 611plastic ba&s o( suspected mari3uana (ruitin& tops %ei&$in& 7,8*1: &rams in 'iolation o( t$e abo'e-cited la%CON/;A;< /O =A># +. /$e pro sec uti on contends t$e o(( ense %as commit ted as (ol lo%s0 ?n No'ember 1995 , member s o( t$e Nor t$ etropoli tan District, 2$i lippine National 2ol ice 62N2Nar cot ics Command 6Narcom, recei'ed in(ormation (rom t%o 6+ci'ilian in(ormants 6C?t$at one #@un# %as en&a&ed in ille&al dru& acti'ities in andaluyon& City/$e Narcom a&ents decided to entrap and arrest #@un# in a buy-bust operationAs arran&ed by one o( t$e C?s, a meetin& bet%een t$e Narcom a&ents and #@un# %as sc$eduled on December 5 , 1995 at E@acinto )treet in andaluyon& CityOn December 5, 1995, at 80in t$e mornin&, t$e C? %ent to t$e 2N2 4eaduarters at ED)A, amunin&, ueon City to prepare (or t$e buy-bust operation/$e Narcom a&ents (or med /e am Al p$a compos ed o( 2? nspNol asco Cor tes as team leade r and 2OCel so anlan&it, )2O1 Edmund Badua and (our 6*ot$er policemen as members2?nspCortes desi& nated 2Oanlan&it as t$e poseur -buy er and )2O1 Badua as $is bacG-up, and t$e rest o(t$e team as perimeter security)uperintendent 2edro Alcantara, C$ie( o( t$e Nort$ etropolitan District 2N2 Narcom, &a'e t$e team 2+,to co'er operational eHpensesFrom t$is sum, 2Oanlan&it set aside 21,8-- a one t$ousand peso bill and siH 68one $undred peso
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FLORENCIO
DORIA y OLADO, an! "IOLETA GADDAO y CATA#A $
%NENETH,% accused-appellants.
D E C I S I O N
P&NO, J .'
On December 7, 1995, accused-appellants Florencio Doria y Bolado and ioleta !addao yCatama " #Nenet$# %ere c$ar&ed %it$ 'iolation o( )ection *, in relation to )ection +1 o( t$e
members o( t$e Nort$ etropolitan District, 2$ilippine National 2olice 62N2 Narcotics
Command 6Narcom, recei'ed in(ormation (rom t%o 6+ ci'ilian in(ormants 6C? t$at one #@un#%as en&a&ed in ille&al dru& acti'ities in andaluyon& City /$e Narcom a&ents decided to
entrap and arrest #@un# in a buy-bust operation As arran&ed by one o( t$e C?s, a meetin&
bet%een t$e Narcom a&ents and #@un# %as sc$eduled on December 5, 1995 at E @acinto )treet inandaluyon& City
On December 5, 1995, at 80 in t$e mornin&, t$e C? %ent to t$e 2N2 4eaduarters atED)A, amunin&, ueon City to prepare (or t$e buy-bust operation /$e Narcom a&ents(ormed /eam Alp$a composed o( 2?nsp Nolasco Cortes as team leader and 2O Celso
anlan&it, )2O1 Edmund Badua and (our 6* ot$er policemen as members 2?nsp Cortes
desi&nated 2O anlan&it as t$e poseur-buyer and )2O1 Badua as $is bacG-up, and t$e rest o(
t$e team as perimeter security )uperintendent 2edro Alcantara, C$ie( o( t$e Nort$ etropolitanDistrict 2N2 Narcom, &a'e t$e team 2+, to co'er operational eHpenses From t$is sum,
2O anlan&it set aside 21,8-- a one t$ousand peso bill and siH 68 one $undred peso
bills.-- as money (or t$e buy-bust operation /$e marGet price o( one Gilo o( mari3uana %as
t$en21,8 2O anlan&it marGed t$e bills %it$ $is initials and listed t$eir serial numbers in
t$e police blotter*. /$e team rode in t%o cars and $eaded (or t$e tar&et area
At 70+ o( t$e same mornin&, #@un# appeared and t$e C? introduced 2O anlan&it as
interested in buyin& one 61 Gilo o( mari3uana 2O anlan&it $anded #@un# t$e marGed bills
%ort$ 21,8 #@un# instructed 2O anlan&it to %ait (or $im at t$e corner o( )$a%Boule'ard and @acinto )treet %$ile $e &ot t$e mari3uana (rom $is associate5. An $our later, #@un#
appeared at t$e a&reed place %$ere 2O anlan&it, t$e C? and t$e rest o( t$e team %ere %aitin&
#@un# tooG out (rom $is ba& an ob3ect %rapped in plastic and &a'e it to 2O anlan&it 2O
anlan&it (ort$%it$ arrested #@un# as )2O1 Badua rus$ed to $elp in t$e arrest /$ey (risGed#@un# but did not (ind t$e marGed bills on $im Ipon inuiry, #@un# re'ealed t$at $e le(t t$e
money at t$e $ouse o( $is associate named #Nenet$# 8. #@un# led t$e police team to #Nenet$s#
$ouse nearby at Daan& BaGal
/$e team (ound t$e door o( #Nenet$s# $ouse open and a %oman inside #@un# identi(ied t$e
%oman as $is associate7. )2O1 Badua asGed #Nenet$# about t$e 21,8 as 2O anlan&it
looGed o'er #Nenet$s# $ouse )tandin& by t$e door, 2O anlan&it noticed a carton boH under t$e dinin& table 4e sa% t$at one o( t$e boHs (laps %as open and inside t$e boH %as somet$in&
%rapped in plastic /$e plastic %rapper and its contents appeared similar to t$e mari3uana earlier
#sold# to $im by #@un# 4is suspicion aroused, 2O anlan&it entered #Nenet$s# $ouse and tooG
$old o( t$e boH 4e peeGed inside t$e boH and (ound t$at it contained ten 61 bricGs o( %$atappeared to be dried mari3uana lea'es
#Nenet$#:. /$e policemen arrested #Nenet$# /$ey tooG #Nenet$# and #@un,# to&et$er %it$ t$e boH, its contents and t$e marGed bills and turned t$em o'er to t$e in'esti&ator at $eaduarters ?t
%as only t$en t$at t$e police learned t$at #@un# is Florencio Doria y Bolado %$ile #Nenet$# is
ioleta !addao y Catama /$e one 61 bricG o( dried mari3uana lea'es reco'ered (rom #@un# plus
t$e ten 61 bricGs reco'ered (rom #Nenet$s# $ouse %ere eHamined at t$e 2N2 Crime=aboratory9. /$e bricGs, ele'en 611 in all, %ere (ound to be dried mari3uana (ruitin& tops o(
'arious %ei&$ts totallin& 7,8*1: &rams1.
/$e prosecution story %as denied by accused-appellants Florencio Doria and ioleta!addao Florencio Doria, a -year old carpenter, testi(ied t$at on December 5, 1995, at 70 in
t$e mornin&, $e %as at t$e &ate o( $is $ouse readin& a tabloid ne%spaper /%o men appeared and
asGed $im i( $e Gne% a certain #/otoy# /$ere %ere many #/otoys# in t$eir area and as t$e menuestionin& $im %ere stran&ers, accused-appellant denied Gno%in& any #/otoy# /$e men tooG
accused-appellant inside $is $ouse and accused $im o( bein& a pus$er in t$eir community>$en
accused-appellant denied t$e c$ar&e, t$e men led $im to t$eir car outside and ordered $im to
point out t$e $ouse o( #/otoy# For (i'e 65 minutes, accused-appellant stayed in t$ecar /$erea(ter, $e &a'e in and tooG t$em to #/otoys# $ouse
Doria GnocGed on t$e door o( #/otoys# $ouse but no one ans%ered One o( t$e men, later
identi(ied as 2O anlan&it, pus$ed open t$e door and $e and $is companions entered andlooGed around t$e $ouse (or about t$ree minutes Accused-appellant Doria %as le(t standin& at
t$e door /$e policemen came out o( t$e $ouse and t$ey sa% ioleta !addao carryin& %ater (rom
t$e %ell 4e asGed ioleta %$ere #/otoy# %as but s$e replied $e %as not t$ere CuriousonlooGers and Gibiters %ere, by t$at time, surroundin& t$em >$en ioleta entered $er $ouse,
t$ree men %ere already inside Accused-appellant Doria, t$en still at t$e door, o'er$eard one o(
t$e men say t$at t$ey (ound a carton boH /urnin& to%ards t$em, Doria sa% a boH on top o( t$e
table /$e boH %as open and $ad somet$in& inside 2O anlan&it ordered $im and ioleta to&o outside t$e $ouse and board t$e car /$ey %ere brou&$t to police $eaduarters %$ere t$ey
%ere in'esti&ated
Accused-appellant Doria (urt$er declared t$at $is co-accused, ioleta !addao, is t$e %i(e o( $is acuaintance, /otoy !addao 4e said t$at $e and /otoy !addao sometimes dranG to&et$er at
t$e nei&$bor$ood store /$is closeness, $o%e'er, did not eHtend to ioleta, /otoys %i(e11.
Accused-appellant ioleta !addao, a 5-year old rice 'endor, claimed t$at on December 5,
1995, s$e %as at $er $ouse at Daan& BaGal, andaluyon& City %$ere s$e li'ed %it$ $er $usbandand (i'e 65 c$ildren, namely, Ar'y, a&ed 1, Ar3ay, a&ed :, t$e t%ins ;aymond and ;aynan,
a&ed 5, and @ason, a&ed /$at day, accused-appellant %oGe up at 50 in t$e mornin& and
bou&$t pan de sal (or $er c$ildrens breaG(ast 4er $usband, /otoy, a $ousepainter, $ad le(t (or 2an&asinan (i'e days earlier )$e %oGe $er c$ildren and bat$ed t$em 4er eldest son, Ar'y, le(t
(or sc$ool at 80*5 A /en minutes later, s$e carried $er youn&est son, @ayson, and
accompanied Ar3ay to sc$ool )$e le(t t$e t%ins at $ome lea'in& t$e door open A(ter seein&Ar3ay o((, s$e and @ayson remained standin& in (ront o( t$e sc$ool soaGin& in t$e sun (or about
about a boH on top o( t$e table /$is %as t$e (irst time s$e sa% t$e boH /$e boH %as closed andtied %it$ a piece o( &reen stra% /$e men opened t$e boH and s$o%ed $er its contents )$e said
s$e did not Gno% anyt$in& about t$e boH and its contents
Accused-appellant ioleta !addao con(irmed t$at $er co-accused Florencio Doria %as a(riend o( $er $usband, and t$at $er $usband ne'er returned to t$eir $ouse a(ter $e le(t (or 2an&asinan )$e denied t$e c$ar&e a&ainst $er and Doria and t$e alle&ation t$at marGed bills
%ere (ound in $er person1+.
A(ter trial, t$e ;e&ional /rial Court, Branc$ 158, 2asi& City con'icted t$e accused-appellants /$e trial court (ound t$e eHistence o( an #or&aniedsyndicated crime &roup# and
sentenced bot$ accused-appellants to deat$ and pay a (ine o( 25, eac$ /$e dispositi'e
accused-appellant !addao, t$e searc$ o( $er person and $ouse, and t$e admissibility o( t$e pieces
o( e'idence obtained t$ere(rom
Accused-appellants %ere cau&$t by t$e police in a buy-bust operation A buy-bust operationis a (orm o( entrapment employed by peace o((icers as an e((ecti'e %ay o( appre$endin& a
criminal in t$e act o( t$e commission o( an o((ense 18. Entrapment $as recei'ed 3udicial sanction%$en undertaGen %it$ due re&ard to constitutional and le&al sa(e&uards17.
Entrapment %as unGno%n in common la% ?t is a 3udicially created t%entiet$-century
American doctrine t$at e'ol'ed (rom t$e increasin& use o( in(ormers and underco'er a&ents in
t$e doctrine o( estoppel and t$e public interest in t$e (ormulation and application o( decent
standards in t$e en(orcement o( criminal la%19. ?t also tooG o(( (rom a spontaneous moral
re'ulsion a&ainst usin& t$e po%ers o( &o'ernment to be&uile innocent but ductile persons intolapses t$at t$ey mi&$t ot$er%ise resist+.
?n t$e American 3urisdiction, t$e term #entrapment# $as a &enerally ne&ati'e meanin&
because it is understood as t$e inducement o( one to commit a crime not contemplated by $im,(or t$e mere purpose o( institutin& a criminal prosecution a&ainst $im+1. /$e classic de(inition o(
entrapment is t$at articulated by @ustice ;oberts in Sorrells v. United States,++. t$e (irst )upreme
Court decision to acGno%led&e t$e concept0 #Entrapment is t$e conception and plannin& o( an
o((ense by an o((icer, and $is procurement o( its commission by one %$o %ould not $a'e
perpetrated it eHcept (or t$e tricGery, persuasion or (raud o( t$e o((icer #+. ?t consists o( t%o 6+
elements0 6a acts o( persuasion, tricGery, or (raud carried out by la% en(orcement o((icers or t$e
a&ents to induce a de(endant to commit a crimeL and 6b t$e ori&in o( t$e criminal desi&n in t$eminds o( t$e &o'ernment o((icials rat$er t$an t$at o( t$e innocent de(endant, suc$ t$at t$e crime
?t is reco&nied t$at in e'ery arrest, t$ere is a certain amount o( entrapment used to out%itt$e persons 'iolatin& or about to 'iolate t$e la% Not e'ery deception is (orbidden /$e type o(
entrapment t$e la% (orbids is t$e inducin& o( anot$er to 'iolate t$e la%, t$e #seduction# o( an
ot$er%ise innocent person into a criminal career+5. >$ere t$e criminal intent ori&inates in t$emind o( t$e entrappin& person and t$e accused is lured into t$e commission o( t$e o((ense
c$ar&ed in order to prosecute $im, t$ere is entrapment and no con'iction may be $ad +8. >$ere,
$o%e'er, t$e criminal intent ori&inates in t$e mind o( t$e accused and t$e criminal o((ense is
completed, t$e (act t$at a person actin& as a decoy (or t$e state, or public o((icials (urnis$ed t$eaccused an opportunity (or commission o( t$e o((ense, or t$at t$e accused is aided in t$e
commission o( t$e crime in order to secure t$e e'idence necessary to prosecute $im, t$ere is no
entrapment and t$e accused must be con'icted+7. /$e la% tolerates t$e use o( decoys and ot$er
arti(ices to catc$ a criminalEntrapment is reco&nied as a 'alid de(ense+:. t$at can be raised by an accused and partaGes
o( t$e nature o( a con(ession and a'oidance+9. ?t is a positi'e de(ense ?nitially, an accused $ast$e burden o( pro'idin& su((icient e'idence t$at t$e &o'ernment induced $im to commit t$e
o((ense Once establis$ed, t$e burden s$i(ts to t$e &o'ernment to s$o% ot$er%ise . >$en
entrapment is raised as a de(ense, American (ederal courts and a ma3ority o( state courts use t$e
#sub3ecti'e# or #ori&in o( intent# test laid do%n in Sorrells v. United States1. to determine%$et$er entrapment actually occurred /$e (ocus o( t$e inuiry is on t$e accuseds predisposition
to commit t$e o((ense c$ar&ed, $is state o( mind and inclination be(ore $is initial eHposure to
&o'ernment a&ents+. All rele'ant (acts suc$ as t$e accuseds mental and c$aracter traits, $is pasto((enses, acti'ities, $is ea&erness in committin& t$e crime, $is reputation, etc, are considered to
assess $is state o( mind be(ore t$e crime. /$e predisposition test emp$asies t$e accuseds propensity to commit t$e o((ense rat$er t$an t$e o((icers misconduct*. and re(lects an attempt todra% a line bet%een a #trap (or t$e un%ary innocent and t$e trap (or t$e un%ary criminal# 5. ?(
t$e accused %as (ound to $a'e been ready and %illin& to commit t$e o((ense at any (a'orable
opportunity, t$e entrapment de(ense %ill (ail e'en i( a police a&ent used an unduly persuasi'e
inducement8. )ome states, $o%e'er, $a'e adopted t$e #ob3ecti'e# test 7. /$is test %as (irstaut$oritati'ely laid do%n in t$e case o( Grossman v. State:. rendered by t$e )upreme Court o(
AlasGa )e'eral ot$er states $a'e subseuently adopted t$e test by 3udicial pronouncement or
o( police conduct9. /$e inuiry is (ocused on t$e inducements used by &o'ernment a&ents, on
police conduct, not on t$e accused and $is predisposition to commit t$e crime For t$e &oal o(
t$e de(ense is to deter unla%(ul police conduct*. /$e test o( entrapment is %$et$er t$e conduct
o( t$e la% en(orcement a&ent %as liGely to induce a normally la%-abidin& person, ot$er t$an one
%$o is ready and %illin&, to commit t$e o((enseL*1.
(or purposes o( t$is test, it is presumed t$at ala%-abidin& person %ould normally resist t$e temptation to commit a crime t$at is presented by
t$e simple opportunity to act unla%(ully*+. O((icial conduct t$at merely o((ers suc$ an
opportunity is permissible, but o'erbearin& conduct, suc$ as bad&erin&, ca3olin& or importunin&,*. or appeals to sentiments suc$ as pity, sympat$y, (riends$ip or pleas o( desperate illness, are
not**. 2roponents o( t$is test belie'e t$at courts must re(use to con'ict an entrapped accused not
because $is conduct (alls outside t$e le&al norm but rat$er because, e'en i( $is &uilt $as beenestablis$ed, t$e met$ods employed on be$al( o( t$e &o'ernment to brin& about t$e crime #cannot
be countenanced# /o some eHtent, t$is re(lects t$e notion t$at t$e courts s$ould not become
tainted by condonin& la% en(orcement improprieties *5. 4ence, t$e transactions leadin& up to t$e
o((ense, t$e interaction bet%een t$e accused and la% en(orcement o((icer and t$e accuseds
response to t$e o((icers inducements, t$e &ra'ity o( t$e crime, and t$e di((iculty o( detectin&instances o( its commission are considered in 3ud&in& %$at t$e e((ect o( t$e o((icers conduct
%ould be on a normal person*8.
Bot$ t$e #sub3ecti'e# and #ob3ecti'e# approac$es $a'e been criticied and ob3ected to ?t is
claimed t$at t$e #sub3ecti'e# test creates an #anyt$in& &oes# rule, ie, i( t$e court determines t$at
an accused %as predisposed to commit t$e crime c$ar&ed, no le'el o( police deceit, bad&erin& or
ot$er unsa'ory practices %ill be deemed impermissible *7. Del'in& into t$e accuseds c$aracter and predisposition obscures t$e more important tasG o( 3ud&in& police be$a'ior and pre3udices
t$e accused more &enerally ?t i&nores t$e possibility t$at no matter %$at $is past crimes and
&eneral disposition %ere, t$e accused mi&$t not $a'e committed t$e particular crime unlesscon(ronted %it$ inordinate inducements*:. On t$e ot$er eHtreme, t$e purely #ob3ecti'e# test
eliminates entirely t$e need (or considerin& a particular accuseds predisposition4is predisposition, at least i( Gno%n by t$e police, may $a'e an important bearin& upon t$e uestion
personnel, actually induced $im to commit t$e crime in order to prosecute $im )mit$, t$e B?;
a&ent, testi(ied t$at 2$elps appre$ension came a(ter $e o'er$eard 2$elps in a saloon say t$at $e
liGed smoGin& opium on some occasions )mit$s testimony %as disre&arded >e accordedsi&ni(icance to t$e (act t$at it %as )mit$ %$o %ent to t$e accused t$ree times to con'ince $im to
looG (or an opium den %$ere bot$ o( t$em could smoGe t$is dru& 57. /$e conduct o( t$e B?;
?t %as also in t$e same case o( People v. Lua Chu and Uy Se ieng 8. %e (irst laid do%n t$edistinction bet%een entrapment 'is-a-'is insti&ation or inducement uotin& 18 Corpus @uris,8*. %e $eld0
#EN/;A2EN/ AND ?N)/?!A/?ON -- >$ile it $as been said t$at t$e practice o(
entrappin& persons into crime (or t$e purpose o( institutin& criminal prosecutions is to
be deplored, and %$ile insti&ation, as distin&uis$ed (rom mere entrapment, $as o(ten
been condemned and $as sometimes been $eld to pre'ent t$e act (rom bein& criminal
or punis$able, t$e &eneral rule is t$at it is no de(ense to t$e perpetrator o( a crime t$at(acilities (or its commission %ere purposely placed in $is %ay, or t$at t$e criminal act
%as done at t$e decoy solicitation o( persons seeGin& to eHpose t$e criminal, or t$at
detecti'es (ei&nin& complicity in t$e act %ere present and apparently assistin& in its
commission Especially is t$is true in t$at class o( cases %$ere t$e o((ense is one o( a
Gind $abitually committed, and t$e solicitation merely (urnis$es e'idence o( a course
o( conduct ere deception by t$e detecti'e %ill not s$ield de(endant, i( t$e o((ense
%as committed by $im, (ree (rom t$e in(luence or insti&ation o( t$e detecti'e /$e (act
t$at an a&ent o( an o%ner acts as a supposed con(ederate o( a t$ie( is no de(ense to t$e
latter in a prosecution (or larceny, pro'ided t$e ori&inal desi&n %as (ormed
independently o( suc$ a&entL and %$ere a person approac$ed by t$e t$ie( as $iscon(ederate noti(ies t$e o%ner or t$e public aut$orities, and, bein& aut$orised by t$em
to do so, assists t$e t$ie( in carryin& out t$e plan, t$e larceny is ne'ert$eless
committed ?t is &enerally $eld t$at it is no de(ense to a prosecution (or an ille&al sale
o( liuor t$at t$e purc$ase %as made by a spotter, detecti'e, or $ired in(ormerL but
?n People v. Galicia,88. t$e appellate court declared t$at #t$ere is a %ide di((erence bet%een
entrapment and insti&ation# /$e insti&ator practically induces t$e %ould-be accused into t$ecommission o( t$e o((ense and $imsel( becomes a co-principal ?n entrapment, %ays and means
are resorted to by t$e peace o((icer (or t$e purpose o( trappin& and capturin& t$e la%breaGer in
t$e eHecution o( $is criminal plan87.
?n People v. an iong ,8:.
t$e Court o( Appeals (urt$er declared t$at #entrapment is no bar to t$e prosecution and con'iction o( t$e la%breaGer# 89.
/$e pronouncement o( t$e Court o( Appeals in People v. Galicia %as a((irmed by t$is Court
in People v. iu Ua.7. Entrapment, %e (urt$er $eld, is not contrary to public policy ?t is
insti&ation t$at is deemed contrary to public policy and ille&al71.
?t can t$us be seen t$at t$e concept o( entrapment in t$e American 3urisdiction is similar to
insti&ation or inducement in 2$ilippine 3urisprudence Entrapment in t$e 2$ilippines is not a
de(ense a'ailable to t$e accused ?t is insti&ation t$at is a de(ense and is considered an absolutorycause7+. /o determine %$et$er t$ere is entrapment or insti&ation, our courts $a'e mainly
eHamined t$e conduct o( t$e appre$endin& o((icers, not t$e predisposition o( t$e accused to
commit t$e crime /$e #ob3ecti'e# test (irst applied in United States v. Phelps $as been (ollo%edin a series o( similar cases 7. Ne'ert$eless, adoptin& t$e #ob3ecti'e# approac$ $as not precluded
us (rom liGe%ise applyin& t$e #sub3ecti'e# test ?n People v. Boholst ,7*. %e applied bot$ tests by
eHaminin& t$e conduct o( t$e police o((icers in a buy-bust operation andadmittin& e'idence o(
t$e accuseds members$ip %it$ t$e notorious and dreaded )i&ue-)i&ue )putniG !an& >e alsoconsidered accuseds pre'ious con'ictions o( ot$er crimes75. and $eld t$at $is opprobrious past
and members$ip %it$ t$e dreaded &an& stren&t$ened t$e states e'idence a&ainst
$im Con'ersely, t$e e'idence t$at t$e accused did not sell or smoGe mari3uana and did not $a'eany criminal record %as liGe%ise admitted in People v. !utuc78. t$ereby sustainin& $is de(ense
t$at led to $is acuittal
/$e distinction bet%een entrapment and insti&ation $as pro'en to be 'ery material in anti-
narcotics operations ?n recent years, it $as become common practice (or la% en(orcemento((icers and a&ents to en&a&e in buy-bust operations and ot$er entrapment procedures in
appre$endin& dru& o((enders Anti-narcotics la%s, liGe anti-&amblin& la%s are re&ulatory
statutes77. /$ey are rules o( con'enience desi&ned to secure a more orderly re&ulation o( t$ea((airs o( society, and t$eir 'iolation &i'es rise to crimes mala prohibita7:. /$ey are not t$e
traditional type o( criminal la% suc$ as t$e la% o( murder, rape, t$e(t, arson, etc t$at deal %it$
crimes mala in se or t$ose in$erently %ron&(ul and immoral79. =a%s de(inin& crimes mala prohibita condemn be$a'ior directed, not a&ainst particular indi'iduals, but a&ainst public order
:. iolation is deemed a %ron& a&ainst society as a %$ole and is &enerally unattended %it$ any
particular $arm to a de(inite person:1. /$ese o((enses are carried on in secret and t$e 'iolatorsresort to many de'ices and subter(u&es to a'oid detection ?t is rare (or any member o( t$e
public, no matter $o% (uriously $e condemns acts mala prohibita" to be %illin& to assist in t$een(orcement o( t$e la% ?t is necessary, t$ere(ore, t$at &o'ernment in detectin& and punis$in&
'iolations o( t$ese la%s, rely, not upon t$e 'oluntary action o( a&&rie'ed indi'iduals, but upont$e dili&ence o( its o%n o((icials /$is means t$at t$e police must be present at t$e time t$e
o((enses are committed eit$er in an underco'er capacity or t$rou&$ in(ormants, spies or stool
/$ou&$ considered essential by t$e police in en(orcin& 'ice le&islation, t$e con(idential
in(ormant system breeds abominable abuse Freuently, a person %$o accepts payment (rom t$e
police in t$e appre$ension o( dru& peddlers and &amblers also accept payment (rom t$ese persons %$o decei'e t$e police /$e in(ormant $imsel( may be a dru& addict, picGpocGet, pimp,
or ot$er petty criminal For %$ate'er noble purpose it ser'es, t$e spectacle t$at &o'ernment is
secretly mated %it$ t$e under%orld and uses under%orld c$aracters to $elp maintain la% andorder is not an inspirin& one:. Eually odious is t$e bitter reality o( dealin& %it$ unscrupulous,
moti'ations are le&ion-- $arassment, eHtortion, 'en&eance, blacGmail, or a desire to report anaccomplis$ment to t$eir superiors /$is Court $as taGen 3udicial notice o( t$is u&ly reality in a
number o( cases:*. %$ere %e obser'ed t$at it is a common modus operandi o( corrupt la%
en(orcers to prey on %eaG and $apless persons, particularly unsuspectin& pro'incial $icGs :5. /$e
use o( s$ady under%orld c$aracters as in(ormants, t$e relati'e ease %it$ %$ic$ ille&al dru&s may be planted in t$e $ands or property o( trustin& and i&norant persons, and t$e imposed secrecy t$at
ine'itably s$rouds all dru& deals $a'e compelled t$is Court to be eHtra-'i&ilant in decidin& dru&
cases:8. Criminal acti'ity is suc$ t$at stealt$ and strate&y, alt$ou&$ necessary %eapons in t$e
arsenal o( t$e police o((icer, become as ob3ectionable police met$ods as t$e coerced con(essionand t$e unla%(ul searc$ As %ell put by t$e )upreme Court o( Cali(ornia in People v. Barraza,:7.
#E.ntrapment is a (acet o( a broader problem Alon& %it$ ille&al searc$ and seiures,
%iretappin&, (alse arrest, ille&al detention and t$e t$ird de&ree, it is a type o( la%less
en(orcement /$ey all sprin& (rom common moti'ations Eac$ is a substitute (or
sGill(ul and scienti(ic in'esti&ation Eac$ is condoned by t$e sinister sop$ism t$at t$e
?t is t$us imperati'e t$at t$e presumption, #uris tantum, o( re&ularity in t$e per(ormance o(
o((icial duty by la% en(orcement a&ents raised by t$e )olicitor !eneral be applied %it$ studiedrestraint /$is presumption s$ould not by itsel( pre'ail o'er t$e presumption o( innocence andt$e constitutionally-protected ri&$ts o( t$e indi'idual :9. ?t is t$e duty o( courts to preser'e t$e
purity o( t$eir o%n temple (rom t$e prostitution o( t$e criminal la% t$rou&$ la%less en(orcement9. Courts s$ould not allo% t$emsel'es to be used as an instrument o( abuse and in3ustice lest an
innocent person be made to su((er t$e unusually se'ere penalties (or dru& o((enses 91.
>e t$ere(ore stress t$at t$e #ob3ecti'e# test in buy-bust operations demands t$at t$e details
o( t$e purported transaction must be clearly and adeuately s$o%n /$is must start (rom t$e
initial contact bet%een t$e poseur-buyer and t$e pus$er, t$e o((er to purc$ase, t$e promise or payment o( t$e consideration until t$e consummation o( t$e sale by t$e deli'ery o( t$e ille&al
dru& sub3ect o( t$e sale9+.
/$e manner by %$ic$ t$e initial contact %as made, %$et$er or nott$rou&$ an in(ormant, t$e o((er to purc$ase t$e dru&, t$e payment o( t$e #buy-bust# money, and
t$e deli'ery o( t$e ille&al dru&, %$et$er to t$e in(ormant alone or t$e police o((icer, must be t$esub3ect o( strict scrutiny by courts to insure t$at la%-abidin& citiens are not unla%(ully induced
to commit an o((ense Criminals must be cau&$t but not at all cost At t$e same time, $o%e'er,
eHaminin& t$e conduct o( t$e police s$ould not disable courts into i&norin& t$e accuseds predisposition to commit t$e crime ?( t$ere is o'er%$elmin& e'idence o( $abitual delinuency,
recidi'ism or plain criminal procli'ity, t$en t$is must also be considered Courts s$ould looG at
all (actors to determine t$e predisposition o( an accused to commit an o((ense in so (ar as t$ey
are rele'ant to determine t$e 'alidity o( t$e de(ense o( inducement
?n t$e case at bar, t$e e'idence s$o%s t$at it %as t$e con(idential in(ormant %$o initiallycontacted accused-appellant Doria At t$e pre-arran&ed meetin&, t$e in(ormant %as accompanied
by 2O anlan&it %$o posed as t$e buyer o( mari3uana 2O anlan&it $anded t$e marGed
money to accused-appellant Doria as ad'ance payment (or one 61 Gilo o( mari3uana Accused-appellant Doria %as appre$ended %$en $e later returned and $anded t$e bricG o( mari3uana to
2O anlan&it
2O anlan&it testi(ied in a (ranG, spontaneous, strai&$(or%ard and cate&orical manner and
$is credibility %as not crumpled on cross-eHamination by de(ense counsel oreo'er, 2Oanlan&its testimony %as corroborated on its material points by )2O1 Badua, $is bacG-up
security /$e non-presentation o( t$e con(idential in(ormant is not (atal to t$e prosecution
?n(ormants are usually not presented in court because o( t$e need to $ide t$eir identity and preser'e t$eir in'aluable ser'ice to t$e police9. ?t is %ell-settled t$at eHcept %$en t$e appellant
'e$emently denies sellin& pro$ibited dru&s and t$ere are material inconsistencies in t$e
testimonies o( t$e arrestin& o((icers,9*.
or t$ere are reasons to belie'e t$at t$e arrestin& o((icers$ad moti'es to testi(y (alsely a&ainst t$e appellant,95. or t$at only t$e in(ormant %as t$e poseur-
buyer %$o actually %itnessed t$e entire transaction,98. t$e testimony o( t$e in(ormant may be
dispensed %it$ as it %ill merely be corroborati'e o( t$e appre$endin& o((icers eye%itness
testimonies97. /$ere is no need to present t$e in(ormant in court %$ere t$e sale %as actually%itnessed and adeuately pro'ed by prosecution %itnesses9:.
/$e inconsistencies in 2O anlan&its and )2O1 Baduas testimonies and t$e ot$er police
o((icers testimonies are minor and do not detract (rom t$e 'eracity and %ei&$t o( t$e prosecutione'idence /$e source o( t$e money (or t$e buy-bust operation is not a critical (act in t$e case at
bar ?t is enou&$ t$at t$e prosecution pro'ed t$at money %as paid to accused-appellant Doria in
consideration o( %$ic$ $e sold and deli'ered t$e mari3uana
Contrary to accused-appellant Dorias claim, t$e one Gilo o( mari3uana #sold# by $im to 2Oanlan&it %as actually identi(ied by 2O anlan&it $imsel( be(ore t$e trial court A(ter
/o stress, %$o made t$e entries o( t$is date, EH$ibit #A# t$en t$e ot$er letters and (i&ures on t$is
plasticM
A /$is one, t$e si&nature, ? made t$e si&nature, t$e date and t$e time and t$is EH$ibit #A#
4o% about t$is oneM
A ? dont Gno% %$o made t$is marGin&, sir
2;O)ECI/O; ay it be o( record t$at t$is %as 3ust entered t$is mornin&
? am asGin& you about t$is #itim# and not t$e #asul#
A /$is C=, t$e date and t$e time and t$e EH$ibit #A,# ? %as t$e one %$o made t$ese marGin&s, sir
2;O)ECI/O; ay %e place on record t$at t$e one t$at %as enclosed
A//< A;?A) <our 4onor, t$ere are also entries included in t$at enclosure %$ere it appears D-9*-
95, also EH$ibit #A,# etc etc, t$at %as not pointed to by t$e %itness ? %ant to maGe it o( record
t$at t$ere are ot$er entries included in t$e enclosure
COI;/ Noted /$e court sa% it
No3, an! +()* a/! -r)08 o6 ar)7uana 3)+( a )0 o6 ar, 3)+( a n3*ar 3ra)n/
3)+( a )0 o6 ar )n*)! 3()0( ra!*' %D>?9@>95, E()-)+ A, 9B /ra* SSL% - ar8!
a* our E()-)+ %D>2:%
CO&RT Ta/ )+. #ar8 )+.
T()* ar+)0uar ()-)+ +(a+ you )!n+)6)!, +( 3rar an! +( 0on+n+* 3a* /)4n +o you -y
3(o:
A I+ 3a* /)4n +o -y *u*0+ Jun, *)r.
;(ra+:
A A+ +( 0ornr o6 ou4ar! an! Ja0)n+o S+., *)r.
Ho3 a-ou+ +( o+(r )+* +(a+ you 3r a- +o r0o4r:
.
A T(* o+(r ar)7uana -r)08*, -0au* !ur)n/ our 6oo3>u, -0au* a00or!)n/ +o Jun +(
ony 3()0( I /a4 () 3a* )n +( (an!* o6 Nn+( an! *o 3 ro0!! +o +( (ou* o6
Nn+(, *)r.
.%99.
/$e (irst bricG identi(ied by 2 anlan&it %as t$e bricG o( mari3uana #&i'en to $im. by suspect@un# at t$e corner o( Boule'ard and @acinto )treets /$is bricG, includin& t$e ne%spaper and
%$ite plastic %rappin& %ere marGed as EH$ibits #D,# #D-1,# and #D-+# and described as%ei&$in& nine $undred se'enty 697 &rams1.
>e also re3ect appellants submission t$at t$e (act t$at 2O anlan&it and $is team %aited
(or almost one $our (or appellant Doria to &i'e t$em t$e one Gilo o( mari3uana a(ter $e
#paid# 21,8 strains credulity Appellant cannot capitalie on t$e circumstance t$at t$emoney and t$e mari3uana in t$e case at bar did not c$an&e $ands under t$e usual #Gali%aan#
system /$ere is no rule o( la% %$ic$ reuires t$at in #buy-bust# operations t$ere must be a
and t$e pus$er 11. A&ain, t$e decisi'e (act is t$at t$e poseur-buyer recei'ed t$e mari3uana (rom
t$e accused-appellant1+.
>e also $old t$at t$e %arrantless arrest o( accused-appellant Doria is not unla%(ul>arrantless arrests are allo%ed in t$ree instances as pro'ided by )ection 5 o( ;ule 11 o( t$e
19:5 ;ules on Criminal 2rocedure, to %it0
#Sec. $. Arrest %ithout %arrant& %hen la%ful -- A peace o((icer or a pri'ate person
6c >$en t$e person to be arrested is a prisoner %$o escaped (rom a penal establis$ment or
place %$ere $e is ser'in& (inal 3ud&ment or temporarily con(ined %$ile $is case is pendin&, or $as
escaped %$ile bein& trans(erred (rom one con(inement to anot$er
H H H#1.
Inder )ection 5 6a, as abo'e-uoted, a person may be arrested %it$out a %arrant i( $e #$as
committed, is actually committin&, or is attemptin& to commit an o((ense# Appellant Doria %as
cau&$t in t$e act o( committin& an o((ense >$en an accused is appre$ended in (la&rante delictoas a result o( a buy-bust operation, t$e police are not only aut$oried but duty-bound to arrest
$im e'en %it$out a %arrant1*.
/$e %arrantless arrest o( appellant !addao, t$e searc$ o( $er person and residence, and t$e
seiure o( t$e boH o( mari3uana and marGed bills are di((erent matters
Our Constitution proscribes searc$ and seiure %it$out a 3udicial %arrant and any e'idenceobtained %it$out suc$ %arrant is inadmissible (or any purpose in any proceedin& 15. /$e rule is,
$o%e'er, not absolute )earc$ and seiure may be made %it$out a %arrant and t$e e'idenceobtained t$ere(rom may be admissible in t$e (ollo%in& instances0 18. 61 searc$ incident to a
la%(ul arrestL17. 6+ searc$ o( a mo'in& motor 'e$icleL 1:. 6 searc$ in 'iolation o( customs la%sL19. 6* seiure o( e'idence in plain 'ie%L11. 65 %$en t$e accused $imsel( %ai'es $is ri&$t a&ainst
unreasonable searc$es and seiures111.
/$e prosecution admits t$at appellant !addao %as arrested %it$out a %arrant o( arrest and
t$e searc$ and seiure o( t$e boH o( mari3uana and t$e marGed bills %ere liGe%ise made %it$out
a searc$ %arrant ?t is claimed, $o%e'er, t$at t$e %arrants %ere not necessary because t$e arrest%as made in #$ot pursuit# and t$e searc$ %as an incident to $er la%(ul arrest
/o be la%(ul, t$e %arrantless arrest o( appellant !addao must (all under any o( t$e t$ree 6
instances enumerated in )ection 5 o( ;ule 11 o( t$e 19:5 ;ules on Criminal 2rocedure as
A /$e buy-bust money %as reco'ered (rom t$e $ouse o( Alin& Nenet$, sir
?t %as taGen (rom t$e $ouse o( Alin& Nenet$, not (rom t$e person o( Alin& Nenet$ ?s t$at %$at you
are tryin& to tell t$e CourtM
A No, sir
A//< A=DEK0 ? am t$rou&$ %it$ t$is %itness, your 4onor# 11.
Accused-appellant !addao %as not cau&$t red-$anded durin& t$e buy-bust operation to &i'e
&round (or $er arrest under )ection 5 6a o( ;ule 11 )$e %as not committin& any crimeContrary to t$e (indin& o( t$e trial court, t$ere %as no occasion at all (or appellant !addao to (lee
(rom t$e policemen to 3usti(y $er arrest in #$ot pursuit# 11*. ?n (act, s$e %as &oin& about $er daily
c$ores %$en t$e policemen pounced on $er
Neit$er could t$e arrest o( appellant !addao be 3usti(ied under t$e second instance o( ;ule
11 #2ersonal Gno%led&e# o( (acts in arrests %it$out %arrant under )ection 5 6b o( ;ule 11
must be based upon #probable cause# %$ic$ means an #actual belie( or reasonable &rounds o(
suspicion#115. /$e &rounds o( suspicion are reasonable %$en, in t$e absence o( actual belie( o( t$e arrestin& o((icers, t$e suspicion t$at t$e person to be arrested is probably &uilty o(
committin& t$e o((ense, is based on actual (acts, ie, supported by circumstances su((iciently
stron& in t$emsel'es to create t$e probable cause o( &uilt o( t$e person to be arrested 118. Areasonable suspicion t$ere(ore must be (ounded on probable cause, coupled %it$ &ood (ait$ on
t$e part o( t$e peace o((icers maGin& t$e arrest117.
made by $er co-accused 2O anlan&it, $o%e'er, declared in $is direct eHamination t$atappellant Doria named $is co-accused in response to $is 62O anlan&its uery as to %$ere t$e
marGed ony %as11:. Appellant Doria did not point to appellant !addao as $is associate in t$e
dru& business, but as t$e person %it$ %$om $e le(t t$e marGed bills /$is identi(ication does notnecessarily lead to t$e conclusion t$at appellant !addao conspired %it$ $er co-accused in
pus$in& dru&s Appellant Doria may $a'e le(t t$e money in $er $ouse,119. %it$ or %it$out $er
Gno%led&e, %it$ or %it$out any conspiracy )a'e (or accused-appellant Dorias %ord, t$e Narcom a&ents $ad no reasonable &rounds to belie'e t$at s$e %as en&a&ed in dru& pus$in& ?(
t$ere is no s$o%in& t$at t$e person %$o e((ected t$e %arrantless arrest $ad, in $is o%n ri&$t,
Gno%led&e o( (acts implicatin& t$e person arrested to t$e perpetration o( a criminal o((ense, t$e
searc$ o( $er person and $ome and t$e subseuent seiure o( t$e marGed bills and mari3uana
cannot be deemed le&al as an incident to $er arrest /$is brin&s us to t$e uestion o( %$et$er t$etrial court correctly (ound t$at t$e boH o( mari3uana %as in plain 'ie%, maGin& its %arrantless
Ob3ects (allin& in plain 'ie% o( an o((icer %$o $as a ri&$t to be in t$e position to $a'e t$at
'ie% are sub3ect to seiure e'en %it$out a searc$ %arrant and may be introduced in e'idence1+1. /$e #plain 'ie%# doctrine applies %$en t$e (ollo%in& reuisites concur0 6a t$e la%en(orcement o((icer in searc$ o( t$e e'idence $as a prior 3usti(ication (or an intrusion or is in a
position (rom %$ic$ $e can 'ie% a particular areaL 6b t$e disco'ery o( t$e e'idence in plain 'ie%
is inad'ertentL 6c it is immediately apparent to t$e o((icer t$at t$e item $e obser'es may bee'idence o( a crime, contraband or ot$er%ise sub3ect to seiure 1++. /$e la% en(orcement o((icer
must la%(ully maGe an initial intrusion or properly be in a position (rom %$ic$ $e can
particularly 'ie% t$e area 1+. ?n t$e course o( suc$ la%(ul intrusion, $e came inad'ertently acrossa piece o( e'idence incriminatin& t$e accused1+*. /$e ob3ect must be open to eye and $and 1+5. and
its disco'ery inad'ertent1+8.
?t is clear t$at an ob3ect is in plain 'ie% i( t$e ob3ect itsel( is plainly eHposed to si&$t /$e
di((iculty arises %$en t$e ob3ect is inside a closed container >$ere t$e ob3ect seied %as inside aclosed pacGa&e, t$e ob3ect itsel( is not in plain 'ie% and t$ere(ore cannot be seied %it$out a
%arrant 4o%e'er, i( t$e pacGa&e proclaims its contents, %$et$er by its distincti'e con(i&uration,
its transparency, or i( its contents are ob'ious to an obser'er, t$en t$e contents are in plain 'ie%
and may be seied1+7. ?n ot$er %ords, i( t$e pacGa&e is suc$ t$at an eHperienced obser'er couldin(er (rom its appearance t$at it contains t$e pro$ibited article, t$en t$e article is deemed in plain
'ie%1+:. ?t must be immediately apparent to t$e police t$at t$e items t$at t$ey obser'e may bee'idence o( a crime, contraband or ot$er%ise sub3ect to seiure1+9.
2O anlan&it, t$e Narcom a&ent %$o (ound t$e boH, testi(ied on cross-eHamination as
(ollo%s0
#A//< A=DEK0
)o $ere %e are >$en you and Badua arri'ed, Alin& Nenet$ %as inside t$e $ouseM
I a no+ a*8)n/ you 3(a+ your r*u+)on* ar. I a*8)n/ you 3(a+ )+ 0ou! o**)-y -.
A I+* +( *a a*+)0, *)r.
A//< A=DEK
?m not e'en asGin& you t$at uestion so %$y are you 'oluntarily sayin& t$e in(ormation =et t$e prosecutor do t$at (or you
COI;/
Continue NeHt uestion
H H H#1.
2O anlan&it and t$e police team %ere at appellant !addaos $ouse because t$ey %ere led
t$ere by appellant Doria /$e Narcom a&ents testi(ied t$at t$ey $ad no in(ormation on appellant
!addao until appellant Doria named $er and led t$em to $er 11. )tandin& by t$e door o( appellant
!addaos $ouse, 2O anlan&it $ad a 'ie% o( t$e interior o( said $ouse /%o and a $al( metersa%ay %as t$e dinin& table and underneat$ it %as a carton boH /$e boH %as partially open and
re'ealed somet$in& %rapped in plastic
?n $is direct eHamination, 2O anlan&it said t$at $e %as sure t$at t$e contents o( t$e boH%ere mari3uana because $e $imsel( c$ecGed and marGed t$e said contents1+. On cross-
eHamination, $o%e'er, $e admitted t$at $e merely r*u! t$e contents to be mari3uana
because it $ad t$e same plastic %rappin& as t$e #buy-bust mari3uana# A close scrutiny o( t$erecords re'eals t$at t$e plastic %rapper %as not colorless and transparent as to clearly mani(est
its contents to a 'ie%er Ea0( o6 +( +n 1B -r)08* o6 ar)7uana )n +( -o 3a* )n!)4)!uay
PO? #anan/)+ +(a+ +( 0on+n+ o6 +( -o 3a* ar)7uana. /$e mari3uana %as not in plain
'ie% and its seiure %it$out t$e reuisite searc$ %arrant %as in 'iolation o( t$e la% and t$eConstitution15. ?t %as (ruit o( t$e poisonous tree and s$ould $a'e been eHcluded and ne'er
considered by t$e trial court18.
/$e (act t$at t$e boH containin& about siH 68 Gilos o( mari3uana17. %as (ound in t$e $ouse o(
accused-appellant !addao does not 3usti(y a (indin& t$at *( $ersel( is &uilty o( t$e crimec$ar&ed1:. Apropos is our rulin& in People v. Aminnudin,19. 'i0
in(lict t$is malediction upon our people, especially t$e susceptible yout$ But as
demandin& as t$is campai&n may be, it cannot be more so t$an t$e compulsions o( t$eBill o( ;i&$ts (or t$e protection o( t$e liberty o( e'ery indi'idual in t$e realm,
/$ose %$o are supposed to en(orce t$e la% are not 3usti(ied in disre&ardin& t$e ri&$t
o( t$e indi'idual in t$e name o( order Order is too $i&$ a price (or t$e loss o(
liberty As @ustice 4olmes, a&ain, said, ? t$inG it a less e'il t$at some criminals s$ould
escape t$an t$at t$e &o'ernment s$ould play an i&noble part ?t is simply not allo%ed
in t$e (ree society to 'iolate a la% to en(orce anot$er, especially i( t$e la% 'iolated ist$e Constitution itsel(#1*.
)ection * o( ;epublic Act No 8*+5, t$e Dan&erous Dru&s Act o( 197+, as amended by)ection 1 o( ;epublic Act No 7859 punis$es t$e #sale, administration, deli'ery, distribution
and transportation o( a pro$ibited dru&# %it$ t$e penalty o( reclusion perpetua to deat$ and a
(ine ran&in& (rom 25, to 21 million, to %it0
#Sec. '. Sale" Administration" (elivery" (istribution and ransportation of Prohibited
(rugs-- /$e penalty o( reclusion perpetua to deat$, and a (ine ran&in& (rom (i'e
$undred t$ousand pesos to ten million pesos s$all be imposed upon any person %$o,
unless aut$oried by la%, s$all sell, administer, deli'er, &i'e a%ay to anot$er,distribute, dispatc$ in transit or transport any pro$ibited dru&, or s$all act as a broGer
in any o( suc$ transactions
H H H#
?n e'ery prosecution (or ille&al sale o( dan&erous dru&s, %$at is material is t$e submission o( proo( t$at t$e sale tooG place bet%een t$e poseur-buyer and t$e seller t$ereo( and t$e
appellant Doria sold and deli'ered nine $undred se'enty 697 &rams o( mari3uana to 2Oanlan&it, t$e poseur-buyer /$e prosecution, $o%e'er, $as (ailed to pro'e t$at accused-
appellant !addao conspired %it$ accused-appellant Doria in t$e sale o( said dru& /$ere bein&
no miti&atin& or a&&ra'atin& circumstances, t$e lo%er penalty o( reclusion perpetua must beimposed1*+.
IN "IE; ;HEREOF, t$e decision o( t$e ;e&ional /rial Court, Branc$ 158, 2asi& City
actin& as a )pecial Court in Criminal Case No 7-D is re'ersed and modi(ied as (ollo%s0
1 Accused-appellant Florencio Doria y Bolado is sentenced to su((er t$e penalty o( reclusion
perpetua and to pay a (ine o( (i'e $undred t$ousand pesos 625,
+ Accused-appellant ioleta !addao y Catama is acuitted
**. )$erman v Inited )tates, 58 I) 89, : 195:. FranG(urter, ) , concurrin&L !rossman v )tate, supra, at +L
see also 2arG, supra, Note +1+, at ++7
*5. =aFa'e and )cott, supra, at *+*
*8. !rossman v )tate, supra, at +L 2eople v Barraa, supra, at 955-958
*7. =aFa'e and )cott, supra, at *+5-*+8
*:. 0d Ot$er ob3ections are also discussed in said booG
*9. 0d
5. 0d
51. 2aton, supra, at 15-18
5+. *85 )o +d 518 Fla 19:5.
5. 0d at 5+1-5++
5*. 7*+ 2 +d 1* N 19:7.
55. 2aton, supra, at 19
58. 18 2$il ** 191.
57. /$is case %as interpreted in 2eople v 4ilario and A&uila, 9 2$il :8, 9 195., %$ere t$e )upreme Courtdeclared t$at t$e #criminal intent# to smoGe opium #ori&inated in t$e mind o( t$e entrappin& a&ent# and t$e accused
%as merely induced to commit t$e act by repeated and persistent solicitation ?n 2$elps, t$e court disre&arded t$e
e'idence o( 2$elps predisposition to commit t$e crime5:. 0d , at **-***
59. *8 2$il :57 19+.
8. 0d , at :81
81. 58 2$il ** 191.
8+. 0d at 5-5*
8. 0d
8*. 2a&e ::, section 57
85. 0d , at 5+-5L also cited in 2eople v 4ilario and A&uila, 9 2$il :8, :9-9 195.
11*. Compare %it$ 2eople v Bati, 1:9 )C;A 97, 1 199., %$ere t$e t%o accused %ere pursued and arrested a (e%
minutes a(ter consummatin& t$e sale o( mari3uana #4ot pursuit# $as a tec$nical meanin& ?t is a doctrine in
?nternational =a% %$ic$ means t$e pursuit in t$e $i&$ seas o( a (orei&n 'essel undertaGen by t$e coastal state %$ic$$as &ood reason to belie'e t$at t$e s$ip $as 'iolated t$e la%s and re&ulations o( t$at state 6)alon&a and <ap, 2ublic
?nternational =a%, p 9 199+.
115. Imil v. ;amos, ++ )C;A +51, +8 1991.L Inited )tates v )antos, 8 2$il :51 1917. 2olice o((icers $ad
personal Gno%led&e o( t$e actual commission o( t$e crime a(ter conductin& a sur'eillance o( t$e accused 62eople v
Bati, 1:9 )C;A 97 199.L 2eople v )ucro, 195 )C;A :: 199., or a prior test-buy operation 62eople v ;amos,1:8 )C;A 1:* 199.
118. 0d
117. 0d
11:. 2O anlan&it a((irmed t$is (act in $is cross-eHamination by counsel (or appellant !addao-- /)N o( February
119. )2O1 Baduas testimony does not clearly establis$ %$ere $e (ound t$e marGed bills-- %$et$er (rom appellant
!addaos person or a(ter a searc$ o( $er $ouse
1+. 2amaran, /$e 19:5 ;ules on Criminal 2rocedure Annotated, p 195 1995.
1+1. 4arris v Inited )tates, 9 I) +*, 19 = Ed +d 187, 189 198:.L see also Bernas, supra, at 17*
1++. Coolid&e v. Ne% 4amps$ire, * I) **, +9 = Ed +d 58* 1971.L /eHas v Bro%n, *8 I) 7, 75 = Ed +d5+, 51 19:.L see also 2eople v usa, +17 )C;A 597, 811 199. citin& bot$ cases
1+. 4arris v. Inited )tates, supra, at 189
1+*. Coolid&e v Ne% 4amps$ire, supra, at 5:+
1+5. ;oan v !onales, 1*5 )C;A 8:7, 897 19:8.L Cru, supra, at 151
1+8. ;oan v !onales, supra, at 897, citin& 4arris v Inited )tates, supraL Bernas, supra, at 17* citin& Coolid&e v Ne% 4amps$ire, * I) **, *7+ 1971.
1+7. ;obbins v Cali(ornia, *5 I) *+, 89 = Ed +d 7**, 751 19:1.L also cited in 2eople v. usa, supra, at 81+
and Note *:L ArGansas v )anders, **+ I) 75, 81 = Ed +d +5, +*5, Note 1 1979.
1+:. ;obbins v Cali(ornia, supra, at 751L /eHas v. Bro%n, supra, at 51*
1+9. 2eople v usa, supra, at 811
1. /)N o( February +, 1998, pp **-*7L Emp$asis supplied
11. /)N o( February +, 1998, p 1
1+. /)N o( February +, 1998, pp 15-18
1. EH$ibits #F,# #!,# #4,# #?,# #@,# #,# #=,# #,# #N,# #OL# /)N o( February +, 1998, pp ++-+5L see also EH$ibit#)--# ;euest (or =aboratory EHamination
1*. ?n 2eople v. usa, +17 )C;A 597, 81+ 199., t$e Narcom a&ents (ound mari3uana in a plastic ba& $an&in& in
one corner o( t$e Gitc$en /$e a&ents $ad no clue as to t$e contents o( t$e ba& and $ad to asG t$e accused %$at it
contained /$e )upreme Court $eld t$at t$e mari3uana %as not in plain 'ie%
15.
)ection +, Bill o( ;i&$ts, 19:7 Constitution18. 2eople v. Aminnudin, 18 )C;A *, *1 19::.
17. /$e total %ei&$t o( 7,8*1: &rams or 78 Gilos o( mari3uana included t$e 97 &rams 6or almost one Gilo o(
t$is 97 &rams, t$e ten bricGs o( mari3uana (ound in t$e boH %ei&$ 8,871: &rams or approHimately 8 Gilos
1:. 2eople v Aminnudin, 18 )C;A *+, *1 19::.
19. 0d
1*. 0d , at *1-*11L also cited in 2eople v Flores, 185 )C;A 71, :5 19::.
1*1. 2eople v Ker'oulaGos, +*1 )C;A 8+5 1995.L 2eople v. artine, +5 )C;A 171 199*.L 2eople v ;i&odon,
+: )C;A +7 199*. /$e eHclusion or absence o( t$e marGed money does not create a hiatus in t$e prosecutionse'idence as lon& as t$e dru& sub3ect o( t$e ille&al transaction %as presented at t$e trial court-- 2eople v Nicolas, +*1
)C;A 57 1995.L 2eople v. =ucero, ++9 )C;A 1 199*.
1*+. )ection +, ;A 7859 amendin& Article 8+ o( t$e Dan&erous Dru&s ActL see also )ection 17 65, ;A 7859