PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROGELIO MORTOS Y TOLENTINO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from the decision^[1] of
the Regional Trial Court convicting accused-appellant Rogelio Mortos of
violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act 6425, otherwise known as the
Dangerous Drugs Act which provides:

“SEC. 4. Sale, Administration, Delivery
Distribution and Transportation of Prohibited
Drugs. – The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging
from twenty thousand to thirty thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person
who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, administer, deliver, give away to
another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any prohibited drug, or
shall act as a broker in any of such transactions. If the victim of the offense is a minor, or should a prohibited
drug involved in any offense under this Section be the proximate cause of the
death of a victim thereof, the maximum penalty herein provided shall be
imposed.” (As amended by PD No. 1675, February 17, 1980)

From the records, we gathered the following facts.

In the afternoon of January 5, 1990, an informant reported to the
Criminal Investigation Service in Cainta, Rizal a certain person who was selling marijuana in Sitio Ruhat,
Mambugan, Antipolo, Rizal. Accordingly,
a buy-bust team composed of C1C Rogelio Dado, Sgt. Romeo Savillo, C1C Manuel
Mercader, and C2C Ronald Villacruzes was organized. Thereafter, the team accompanied by the informant proceeded to
the aforementioned place where informant identified the person who was sought
to be arrested. Afterwards, the group carried out the plan
for the arrest of the suspected pusher.

C1C Manuel Mercader alighted from the vehicle, walked towards
Rogelio Mortos who was then in a sari-sari store where several people were
present, and acting as the poseur-buyer, inquired from the latter if he was
selling marijuana. When Rogelio Mortos
answered in the affirmative, Mercader handed him five (5) marked twenty (20)
peso bills. He was then asked to wait
while Rogelio Mortos got the marijuana from the sari-sari store. Upon his return, Rogelio Mortos handed to
Manuel Mercader a plastic bag
containing 50 grams of marijuana. Upon
receipt thereof, he scratched his head, the pre-arranged signal to the rest of
his team who thereupon approached the two and arrested Rogelio Mortos. They confiscated from him the marked money
and tea bags of marijuana. These were
later presented as evidence against accused-appellant.

Rogelio Mortos, however, denied selling marijuana. He claimed that he was buying cigarettes
from the sari-sari store when he was arrested and brought to the police station
where he was allegedly forced to sign a document and five (5) twenty peso
bills.^[2]
He also averred that no marijuana or marked bills were ever seized from him.

After trial, the lower court pronounced the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt. The dispositive
portion of the appealed decision reads as follows:

“ALINSUNOD SA MGA NASABI, dahilan sa napatunayan ng taga-usig nang
walang bahid alinlangan na si Rogelio Mortos y Tolentino, ang nasasakdal ay
nagkasala ng krimeng Paglabag sa Pangkat 4 ng Artikulo II ng Batas Republika 6425
(na sinusugan noong 1972, 1980, at 1982), siya ay pinapatawan ng Hukuman,
sang-ayon sa nasabing batas ng parusang habang buhay na pagkabilanggo; at
magbayad ng multang DALAWAMPUNG LIBONG PISO (P20,000.00).

Dahil sa siya isang bilanggo,
ang panahong inilagi ni Rogelio Mortos y Tolentino sa piitan ay ibabawas sa
nasabing parusa kung siya ay sasang-ayon sa mga disciplinary rules
na inilalapat sa mga bilanggo alinsunod sa Artikulo 29 ng Bagong Kodigo Penal
na sinusugan ng Batas Republika 6127 at Batas Pambansa Blg. 85.

WALANG KOSTAS.

ITO ANG IPINAG-UUTOS.”^[3]

As basis for the judgment of conviction, the trial court relied
upon the testimony of the apprehending officers, namely Manuel Mercader,
Domingo Dado, and Romeo Savillo, all of whom identified Rogelio Mortos as the
drug-pushing suspect who was apprehended during the buy-bust operation and
testified that Rogelio Mortos was caught in the act of selling marijuana to
Rogelio Mercader. It held that the
testimonies of the above-mentioned officers sufficiently established the guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, notwithstanding his denials in his
testimonies. According to the trial
court, the accused did not succeed in imputing malice on the part of the
arresting officers for arresting and testifying against him.

Accordingly, the trial court applied the rule that public
officers are presumed to have performed their duties in accordance with the
law. Furthermore, the trial court held
that the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the officers were minor and
instead of destroying the credibility of their testimonies, butressed the same.

Rogelio Mortos now appeals his conviction with this sole
assignment of error, to wit:

“The Court a quo
committed a reversible error in admitting the tea bags of marijuana and the
twenty peso bills adduced in evidence by the prosecution.”^[4]

The assignment of error goes beyond the issue regarding the
admissibility as evidence of the marked money and marijuana. In effect, it questions the manner by which
accused-appellant has been arrested and brought to trial.

In the Appellant’s Brief, Rogelio Mortos argued that the
provisions of Sec. 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court^[5]
regarding warrantless arrests are not applicable because he has not committed,
nor was he committing, nor was he about to commit a crime when he was
arrested. For his arrest and for the
search to be valid, therefore, a warrant of arrest and a search warrant were
necessary.

We find no reason to reverse the trial court’s judgment.

After a careful review of the records, we are convinced that the
prosecution successfully overcame the initial presumption of innocence enjoyed
by the accused and proved the latter’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. To recall, the arresting officers, including
the officer who acted as the poseur-buyer, positively testified that Rogelio
Mortos was caught selling marijuana.

To rebut the testimony of the prosecution, the defense presented
Rogelio Mortos to testify that he had been coerced into signing a document and
five (5) twenty peso bills. Apart from
this testimony, however, no other evidence was presented to support his
denial. Neither the document nor the
bills which were alluded to in Rogelio Mortos’ testimony were presented as
exhibits for the defense. If there were
any bills on record, they were the ones which were offered as evidence by the
prosecution. Furthermore, accused did
not even reveal to the Court the contents of the alleged document. We find that Rogelio Mortos’ denials did not
successfully cast doubt on the veracity of the testimony of prosecution’s
witnesses. “[T]he absence of evidence as to
improper motive actuating the principal witnesses for the prosecution strongly
tends to sustain the conclusion that no such improper motive existed, and that
their testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.”^[6]
Paraphrasing this Court’s pronouncement in People
v. Arceo,^[7] we hold that appellant’s denial of
guilt, uncorroborated by any reliable evidence, cannot possibly overthrow the clear
and convincing testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses as to his
culpability. In People v.
Cruz,^[8] we also said: “We sustain the rule that police officers in
buy-bust operations are entitled to the presumption of having acted pursuant to
official duty. Their testimony is
entitled to great respect.”

The
fact that accused-appellant was arrested during a buy-bust operation —
“x x x a form of entrapment employed by peace officers to trap and catch a
malefactor in flagrante delicto^[9] — has
been established. Since accused-appellant
was caught in flagrante delicto, the arresting officers
were not only authorized, but were under obligation to apprehend him even
without a warrant
of arrest.^[10] Thus, the
arrest of accused-appellant falls within paragraph (a) of the
aforequoted provisions of the
Rules of Court.^[11]

[S]ince appellant’s arrest was lawful, it follows that the search
made incidental to the arrest was also valid.^[12] This
is in accordance with Sec. 12, Rule 126, Revised Rules of Court which provides
inter alia:

“Sec. 12. Search Incident
to a Lawful Arrest. – A person lawfully arrested
may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof
for the commission of an offense, without a search warrant.”

From the foregoing, it necessarily follows that because the
marijuana and the marked money were taken from the accused during a valid
arrest following entrapment, they can be legally admitted as evidence against
herein accused-appellant.

ACCORDINGLY, this appeal is DISMISSED and
the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Feliciano, (Chairman), Bidin, Melo, and Vitug, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Usaping Kriminal Blg. 90-5163, December 3, 1991; penned by Judge Rogelio L.
Angeles.

^[2]
TSN, August 12, 1991, p. 4.

^[3]
Rollo, pp. 29-31.

^[4]
Rollo, p. 50.

^[5]
Section 5.- Arrest without a 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;

(b)  When an offense has in fact just been
committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to
be arrested has committed it; and

(c)  When the person to be arrested is a prisoner
who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final
judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped
while being transferred from one confinement to another.

In cases falling under paragraphs
(a) and (b) hereof, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith
delivered to the nearest police station, and he shall be proceeded against in
accordance with Rule 112, Section 7.

^[6]
People v. Blas, G.R. No. 97930, May 27, 1992, 209 SCRA 339.

^[7]
G.R. No. 92019, September 30, 1991, 202 SCRA 170.

^[8]
G.R. No. 87884, November 4, 1992, 215 SCRA 339.

^[9]
People v. del Pilar, G.R. No. 86360, July 28, 1990, 188 SCRA 37.

^[10]
See People v. Paco, G.R. No. 76893, February 27, 1989, 170, SCRA 681, citing
Alvero v. Dizon, 76 Phil. 637 (1946) and People v. Claudio, G.R.
No. 72564, April 15, 1988.

^[11]
In People v. Acuram, G.R. Nos. 98423-24, May 22, 1992, 209 SCRA 281, we
held:

“As the law allows warrantless
arrests when a crime has just been committed, it was not imperative for the
arresting officers to obtain a search warrant or a warrant of arrest. It is of judicial notice that in the arrest
of a violator of the Dangerous Drugs Act as a result of a buy-bust operation,
the offender is invariably caught red-handed. Hence, the admissibility of the seized marijuana is beyond question.

^[12]
People v. Paco, Ibid.