People v. Bagares
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On January 15, 1990, a buy-bust operation was conducted by the Marikina Police based on a tip about a shabu pusher. Private First Class Melanio Valeroso acted as the poseur-buyer and approached appellant Rafael Bagares y Mendoza. Valeroso handed Bagares four P100.00 bills, and Bagares entered an alley, returning shortly with two packets of shabu. Valeroso arrested Bagares and confiscated the marked bills. Bagares identified Imelda Santos y Lopez as his source. The police, with Bagares, proceeded to Santos' residence, where she surrendered four plastic bags of shabu. Both were charged with violation of Section 15 of the Dangerous Drugs Act (R.A. No. 6425, as amended). Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court, Branch 164, Pasig, found Rafael Bagares y Mendoza guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegally selling and/or dispensing shabu, imposing life imprisonment and a P20,000.00 fine. Imelda Santos y Lopez was acquitted. Rafael Bagares y Mendoza appealed. The Petition: Appellant Bagares appealed the decision, claiming the trial court erred in giving full credence to the testimony of the poseur-buyer, in not acquitting him despite the acquittal of his co-accused, and in admitting illegally obtained evidence.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in giving full credence to the testimony of the poseur-buyer. Whether the trial court erred in not acquitting the appellant despite the acquittal of his co-accused. Whether the evidence admitted against the appellant was illegally obtained.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court in all respects except as to the penalty, which was modified. The penalty imposed was six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional to two (2) years and one (1) day of prision correccional.
Ratio Decidendi
On the credibility of the poseur-buyer's testimony: The Court held that there were no grounds to reverse the trial court's findings of fact regarding the credibility of the witnesses. Denials by the accused are considered weak and self-serving unless substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, which was not presented by the appellant. The defense of frame-up is commonly used in drug pushing cases and is easily fabricated. The Court reiterated the presumption that police officers perform their duties regularly, and the appellant failed to show any ill motive on the part of the prosecution witness. The appellant's claim of being with friends drinking beer was not substantiated by any of his alleged numerous guests, and it was plausible for him to slip away unnoticed to conduct the transaction. On the acquittal of the co-accused: The Court clarified that the appellant and his co-accused, Imelda Santos, were not prosecuted on the same basis. Bagares was prosecuted for selling prohibited drugs, while Santos was prosecuted for illegal possession. Bagares was arrested in flagrante delicto, whereas Santos was arrested after a warrantless search based on information from Bagares. The acquittal of Santos was primarily due to constitutional infirmity and the unreasonableness of the warrantless search and seizure against her, which did not apply to Bagares' arrest and the seizure of evidence incident thereto. On the admissibility of the seized evidence: The Court ruled that the evidence (shabu contained in aluminum foil and plastic tea bags) was seized as an incident to the lawful arrest of the appellant in flagrante delicto. Under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a warrantless arrest is permissible when a person commits or attempts to commit an offense in the presence of an officer. Furthermore, Section 12, Rule 126 of the same Code allows a search of a person lawfully arrested for dangerous weapons or proof of the offense without a search warrant. Therefore, the evidence was admissible.
Main Doctrine
Evidence seized incident to a lawful arrest in flagrante delicto is admissible. The penalty for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, is applied retroactively if favorable to the accused, pursuant to Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code.