People v. Hoble
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: A confidential informer reported to NARCOM agents that a certain "Sixto" was to deliver five grams of "shabu" in Barangay Dolores, San Fernando, Pampanga, on board a white Toyota Corolla. Acting on the report, a buy-bust operation was organized. Sgt. Buenaventura Lopez was designated as the poseur-buyer, with Sgt. Bienvenido Andulan and Pat. Edwin Cariño as the back-up team. The informer arranged for the buyer to signal with a "thumb's up" upon the arrival of the Toyota car. When the car arrived, Sgt. Lopez gave the signal and boarded the car. "Sixto," identified as the accused Alfredo Hoble, showed the "shabu" from the glove compartment and handed it to Sgt. Lopez. Sgt. Lopez recognized the substance as "shabu" and signaled his back-up team by lighting a cigarette. The accused and his companion, Victor Javier, were arrested. The NARCOM agents recovered four grams of "shabu" from the accused. Procedural History: Both Hoble and Javier were charged with violation of Sec. 15, Art. III of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. The trial court acquitted Javier on reasonable doubt but found Hoble guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of P20,000.00. The Petition: Accused Hoble appealed his conviction, assigning several errors, including the admission of a previous court decision against him, the admission of a "Certificate Re — Good Conduct of Search" obtained in violation of his right to counsel, giving credence to prosecution witnesses despite inconsistencies, and admitting the "shabu" crystals obtained through a warrantless search.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in admitting in evidence the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City. Whether the "Certificate Re — Good Conduct of Search" was inadmissible due to violation of the right to counsel during custodial investigation. Whether the trial court erred in giving full credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses despite alleged inconsistencies. Whether the aluminum foil containing "shabu" was inadmissible due to a warrantless search of the vehicle.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Alfredo Hoble y Leonardo for violation of Sec. 15, Art. III, of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended. The Court held that the evidence presented established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi
On the admission of the Pasay City RTC decision: The Court ruled that there was no error in admitting the previous decision. The trial court merely cited the decision to refute the appellant's claim that he was unaware of hearings in a prior case, thereby explaining why he did not appear. The conviction was based on the evidence of the entrapment operation, not on the prior decision itself. On the admissibility of the "Certificate Re — Good Conduct of Search": The Court found no error, stating that the records did not show the appellant was subjected to custodial investigation, thus no extrajudicial confession was obtained. The certificate was merely to show the arrest was orderly and did not signify an admission of guilt. The Court noted that the accused did not give any confession or extrajudicial statement. On the alleged inconsistencies in prosecution witnesses' testimonies: The Court held that minor inconsistencies do not affect the credibility of witnesses, especially law enforcers who are presumed to have regularly performed their duties. The testimonies clearly pointed to a negotiation and delivery of "shabu," evidenced by Sgt. Lopez's entry into the appellant's car and the subsequent arrest. The Court reiterated that the absence of marked money does not create a hiatus in the evidence as long as the prohibited drug is presented and the offender is identified. The evidence clearly showed the appellant handed the "shabu" to Sgt. Lopez. On the admissibility of the "shabu" crystals obtained through warrantless search: The Court ruled that the search was lawful as it was an incident to a lawful arrest. The appellant was caught in flagrante delicto transporting and delivering a regulated drug, which justifies a warrantless arrest and a subsequent search for evidence of the offense.
Main Doctrine
The absence of marked money in a buy-bust operation does not negate the commission of the crime of selling or delivering illegal drugs, provided the prohibited drug is presented in court and the offender is clearly identified. Furthermore, a warrantless search conducted as an incident to a lawful arrest made in flagrante delicto is valid.