THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ADELINA CASTILLER Y CASTRO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appellant Adelina Castiller y Castro was charged with and
convicted of violation of Section 4, Art. II of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended,
otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act, under an information which read:

That on or about the 17th day of April, 1988, in the Municipality
of Taguig, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused, without having been authorized by law, did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give away
to another two (2) foils of dried marijuana fruiting tops and was found to be
in possession of the following: one (1)
Ajinomoto plastic bag containing 545 grams of dried marijuana fruiting tops,
ten (10) sticks of marijuana cigarette wrapped with white paper and five (5)
newspaper wrappers each with dried marijuana fruiting tops having a total
weight of 20.77 grams, which is a prohibited drug.

Contrary to law [Rollo, p. 4.]

Upon arraignment, appellant, assisted by counsel, entered a plea of
“not guilty” to the offense charged. Trial ensued with the prosecution and the defense presenting their own
witnesses and evidence to support their respective versions of the events
leading to the arrest of the accused-appellant.

According to the prosecution witnesses, composed mainly of police
officers, at around nine o’clock in the morning of April 18, 1988, the
anti-narcotics intelligence division of the Taguig Police Station received
information from an undisclosed caller that marijuana was being sold by an old
woman in a small store in North Daang Hari Street, Taguig [TSN, June 29, 1988,
p. 4; TSN, October 7, 1988, p. 2.] Immediately, Capt. Ferdinand Santos
organized a
team composed of police officers Felixberto Maog (team leader), Jesus
Chan, Joselito Lintad, Jessie Pasion, Ruel Viring and Carlos Mendibel in order
to conduct a buy-bust operation [TSN, June 29, 1988, p. 4.] Pat. Mendibel, assigned to act as
poseur-buyer, was briefed by Capt. Santos separately from the other members of
the team who were to serve as back-up [TSN, August 2, 1988, pp. 3-4,] and was
later handed a twenty-peso bill to be used to purchase marijuana in the
buy-bust operation [TSN, June 29, 1988, p. 3; TSN, August 10, 1988, p. 14.]

Around noontime, the plainclothes team arrived at North Daang,
Hari. Indeed, they found an old woman
in a small store in No. 303 North Daang Hari, which Pat. Jessie Pasion pointed
out to Mendibel as the subject of the operation. The other members of the team in the meantime positioned
themselves some fifteen (15) meters away from the store [TSN, October 7, 1988,
p. 2.] Pat. Mendibel went to the store,
and said to the appellant: “La, paiskor
ng dalawang foil” [TSN, July 15, 1988, p. 3.] Appellant went inside the store
and came back with two (2) foils of marijuana which she gave to Pat.
Mendibel. Taking the marijuana foils,
Pat. Mendibel introduced himself as a police officer [TSN, July 15, 1988, pp. 3-4.]
Appellant, upon learning that her “customer” was in fact a police officer,
scampered into the back of her store and locked herself inside even before Pat.
Mendibel could hand over the twenty-peso bill in payment of the foils of
marijuana [TSN, August 10, 1988, p. 15.] Pat. Mendibel immediately gave the
pre-arranged signal to inform his teammates that the operation had indeed
yielded marijuana, and to get their assistance in arresting the appellant [TSN,
October 7, 1988, p. 3.] The police officers knocked at the door but appellant
refused to open the door. Later
however, she voluntarily opened the door when the police officers, still
knocking, asked permission to be allowed inside her store [TSN, August 10,
1988, pp. 16-17.]

When the police officers went inside, appellant pointed to a large gray container placed beside
some cases of softdrink [TSN, August 10, 1988, p. 4.] They found a hole at the bottom of the large gray
plastic container, and stored inside were a plastic “Ajinomoto” bag containing
substances which appeared to be marijuana leaves, ten (10) sticks of what
appeared to be marijuana cigarettes, five (5) foils of what appeared to be
marijuana leaves wrapped in newspaper, six (6) packs of “Capitol” brand rolling
paper and a red leatherette bag [Exhibits “G”, “C”, “D”, “E”, “H-1” to “H-6”
and “H” respectively.]

Appellant and the confiscated evidence were brought to the police
station. Pat. Santiago Villa, the
officer assigned to conduct the investigation, informed appellant of her
constitutional rights. Stating only her
name and her desire to consult her lawyer [TSN, August 25, 1988, p. 5,]
appellant opted to remain silent.

The seized specimen, along with a letter-request dated April 18,
1988 signed by Capt. Ferdinand Santos, were then brought to the PC Crime
Laboratory at Camp Crame so that tests could be conducted on the substances
which appeared to be marijuana.

The laboratory analysis conducted by P/Capt. Lina C. Sarmiento
found the specimens to be “positive for marijuana, a prohibited drug”
[Chemistry Report No. D-348-88, Exhibit “A”; and Certificate of Laboratory
Result, Exhibit “J”] i.e., a plastic bag containing 545 grams dried marijuana
fruiting tops, ten (10) sticks of marijuana cigarettes wrapped with white
paper, and the five (5) newspaper wrappers each with dried marijuana fruiting
tops having a total weight of 20.77 grams.

On the other hand, the defense presented a different version of the events that
transpired.

According to appellant, she lived in a squatter area where the
only source of water was an artesian well located one house away from
her store [TSN, February 14, 1989, p. 4.] People usually had to queue up in
order to get water from said well. Those living nearby habitually left their water containers at
appellant’s store which they later claimed when the need arose [TSN, February
14, 1989, p. 4.] Appellant testified that on the night before the alleged
buy-bust operation took place, one “Magda” was the last person to leave her
water container at the store [TSN, January 10, 1989, p. 2.] The next day, at
around 11:30 in the morning, a group of men, strangers to appellant, approached
her in her store. One of them suddenly
held her at her right side and informed her that she would be brought to the
police precinct. Appellant protested
and asked if he had a warrant, but the man did not answer her [TSN, January 10,
1989, p. 3.] The others went inside her
store and began searching the place. Appellant was brought to the police precinct while the others continued
searching her store [TSN, January 10, 1989, pp. 3-4.] Appellant denied
knowledge of the articles inside the gray container which was seized from her
store but she admitted that she recognized the gray container to be Magda’s
[TSN, January 10, 1989, p. 4.]

Two other witnesses were presented for the defense. Carmelita Ramos testified that, like some
five other neighbors of appellant, she usually left her water container at the
latter’s store, and claimed it when she needed to fetch water from the well
again [TSN, February 14, 1989, pp. 3-4.] On the other hand, Rebecca De los
Santos testified that in the evening of April 17, 1988, she saw a certain woman leave her water
container at appellant’s store, and heard the name “Magda” mentioned [TSN,
February 14, 1989, p. 2.]

The trial court, giving credence to the evidence of the
prosecution, found that appellant was caught in flagrante delicto
delivering marijuana. Furthermore, the
trial court held that appellant’s possession of considerable quantities of
marijuana indicates the intention to sell, distribute or deliver the same, and
that she was “really engaged in the illicit trade of marijuana.” The
dispositive portion of the judgment of conviction reads:

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby sentences the accused, ADELINA
CASTILLER Y CASTRO to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
with all its accessory penalties, to pay a fine of P20,000 and to pay the
costs.

In the service of her sentence, the accused shall be credited in
full with the period of her preventive imprisonment.

Pursuant to Section 20, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as
amended, let the 545 grams of dried marijuana fruiting tops, ten (10) sticks of
marijuana cigarette and another 20.77 grams of dried marijuana fruiting tops in
five (5) newspaper wrappers subject matter of this case be turned over to the
Dangerous Drugs Board Custodian, NBI, to be disposed of according to law.

Pursuant to Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code,
the gray plastic container (Exhibit “G”), the red leatherette bag (Exhibit “H”)
and six (6) packs of rolling paper (Exhibits “H-1” to “H-6”) are hereby ordered
confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government.

SO ORDERED.

Appellant assails the
decision of the trial court in this appeal, assigning the following errors:

I

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO
THE TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES AND IN TOTALLY DISREGARDING THE
VERSION OF THE DEFENSE.

II

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED DESPITE HER UNLAWFUL ARREST AND ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE UPON HER
PREMISES.

III

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF VIOLATION OF
SECTION 4, ARTICLE II OF R.A. 6425, AS AMENDED. [Appellant’s Brief, p. 1.]

Ultimately, this case presents only one issue: whether or not appellant was proven guilty
of the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt.

After a thorough perusal
of the evidence of both parties, we find that indeed, as sufficiently
established by the prosecution, appellant is guilty of the crime charged.

The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses substantially
covered the circumstances of each and every stage of the crime, and the
resulting arrest, search and seizure. The buy-bust operation team leader (Pfc. Felixberto Maog) testified as to the
circumstances leading to and the formation of the entrapment scheme. The poseur-buyer (Pat. Mendibel) positively
identified appellant as the woman who delivered two (2) foils of marijuana to
him, and along with a member of the “back-up” (Pat. Jesus Chan), testified as
to the incidental search conducted on the store, and the prohibited drugs
thereon. The case investigator (Pat.
Santiago Villa) testified on the investigation made on appellant and the
examination of the seized articles after the arrest, search and seizure, and
the forensic chemist (P/Capt. Lina Sarmiento) found the seized articles
submitted for examination to be positive for marijuana.

We find their testimonies to be clear, lucid, straightforward and
uncontradicted on all material points.

There is nothing in the record to suggest that the police
officers were compelled by any motive other than to accomplish their mission to
capture appellant in the execution of the crime. The presumption being that police officers perform their duties
regularly in the absence of any evidence to the contrary [Rule 131, Section 5
(m), Rules of Court; People v. Natipravat, G.R. No. 69876, November 13, 1986,
145 SCRA 483; People v. De Jesus, G.R. Nos. 71942-3, November 13, 1986, 145
SCRA 521; People v. Claudio, G.R. No. 72564, April 15, 1988, 160 SCRA 646], their
testimonies are entitled to full faith and credence [People v. Patog
G.R. No. 69620, September 24, 1986, 144 SCRA 429.]

On the other hand, the defense did not put up a substantial
defense other than the denial of the accused. It is well-settled that mere denials cannot prevail against positive
identification of appellant as the seller of the prohibited substances [People v. Khan, G.R.
No. 71863, May 23, 1988, 161 SCRA 406; People v. Paco, G.R. No. 76893, February
27, 1989, 170 SCRA 681.]

Furthermore, the testimonies of defense witnesses Rebecca de los
Santos and Carmelita Ramos do not buttress appellant’s case. At best, they present minor details which
neither substantiate appellant’s denial of the charges nor strengthen the claim
of an arrest and search totally wanting in legal basis.

Curiously, appellant never made any effort to locate “Magda”, the
alleged owner of the container filled with the prohibited substances, in order
to have her arrested. Certainly in a
case where her own life and liberty were at stake, the victim of a wrongful
accusation would have earnestly, nay even desperately, sought ways to vindicate
herself by at least assisting the police in order to have the true offender
apprehended. Appellant’s inaction
becomes all the more baffling considering that, by her own admission, she had
known “Magda” for about a year, they lived on the same street (North Daang
Hari), “Magda” fetched water at the artesian well just one house away from
appellant’s store everyday, and even bought things from the store [TSN, January
10, 1989, pp. 2, 6.]

Collaterally, appellant would now attack the decision by putting
at issue the validity of the buy-bust operation, the failure of prosecution to
produce the “buy-bust money”, and the legality of the arrest and the incidental
search and seizure.

Appellant underscores in its arguments the admission by the
police officers that at the time they set out to conduct the operation, they
did not know who their exact “target” was, having acted solely on a tip given
by a caller who merely described the marijuana seller to be an old woman in a
store on North Daang Hari, but gave no specific name. From this allegation, the defense concluded that no buy-bust
operation had in fact taken place, and that the prosecution merely concocted
the story in order to justify an unlawful arrest resulting from an “intense
enthusiasm to respond to the unidentified caller” [Appellant’s Brief, pp. 7-8.]

This contention is devoid of merit.

The buy-bust operation is a recognized means of entrapment for
the apprehension of drug pushers [People v. Gatong-o, G.R. No. 78698, December
29, 1988, 168 SCRA 716.] This is so because the very characteristic of
prohibited drugs — i.e., their being easily concealed and transferred without
threat of detection in small and handy quantities, — allows its sale, use and
delivery with relative facility. Contrary to appellant’s contention, no surveillance of the area or the
subject of the entrapment is necessary where the police officers had, as in this
case, reasonable ground to believe that the informer and the information given
were reliable, and that a crime is indeed being perpetrated. The buy-bust operation was formed by the police officers
precisely to test the veracity of the tip and in order to apprehend the
perpetrator, if he in fact commits the offense, before he further endangers
society. Besides, the tip given
describing an old woman keeping a store at North Daang Hari as a drug
pusher sufficiently and accurately points to the appellant. There was no arbitrariness on the part of
the poseur-buyer in approaching appellant, who exactly fit every detail of the
description given.

The defense further belabors its theory that no entrapment was
effected by pointing to the fact that the twenty-peso bill allegedly used in
the buy-bust operation and later submitted in evidence was not even marked,
thereby rendering the alleged buy-bust operation all the more dubious
[Appellant’s Brief, p. 8.]

Again, we find no merit in this argument.

Although the alleged buy-bust money was indeed unmarked,
nevertheless, this fact alone will not suffice to weaken the prosecution’s
case. Pat. Mendibel testified that he
was informed by his immediate superior who handed him the money that it
was marked [TSN, June 29, 1988, p. 5; TSN, August 10, 1988, p. 14.] Apparently
however, Mendibel, who joined the police service barely four months earlier
[TSN, June 29, 1988,] failed to personally check whether it was marked. As correctly noted by the Solicitor General,
Mendibel was still a “tyro” in such operations, this being his first drugs case
[Appellee’s Brief, p. 14; Rollo, p. 84,] and he was obviously unfamiliar with
the manner in which buy-bust operations are conducted.

Be that as it may, the failure to mark the bill is not fatal to
the case because the Dangerous Drugs Act punishes “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 . . . .
[Underscoring supplied.]” In this case, the police officer sought to buy two
sticks of marijuana and his offer was accepted by appellant who produced and
delivered the same. The crime was
consummated by the mere delivery of the prohibited goods even without money
changing hands.

As to the issue of the legality of appellant’s warrantless arrest
and the warrantless search, we find that both arrest and incidental search were
made well within the bounds of the law.

The 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure provide that:

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;

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;

*        *        *

In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person
arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police
station or jail, and he shall be proceeded against in accordance with Rule 112,
Section 7. [Rule 113, Section 5; 1985
Rules on Criminal Procedure.]

Both of the above-cited instances of a lawful warrantless arrest are attendant in this case. Appellant was caught in flagrante
delicto delivering to the poseur?buyer two (2) sticks of
marijuana. The offense was committed in
the presence of the police officer, and therefore the latter had personal
knowledge of the commission of the offense. Under the circumstances, appellant’s arrest was lawfully effected
without need of a warrant.

Furthermore, where, as
in this case, the person to be arrested attempts to evade the same, the
Rules on Criminal Procedure allow a
peace officer, in order to make a
lawful warrantless arrest, to “…break into any building or enclosure
in which the person to be arrested is or is reasonably believed to be, if he is
refused admittance thereto, after he has announced his authority and purpose”
[Section 11, Rule 113, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure.] In the case at bar,
the police officers did not have to break into the premises since appellant voluntarily allowed the law officers inside the store. Therefore, the entry by the law enforcers
into the store in order to effect appellant’s arrest was perfectly lawful.

As to the validity of the search conducted upon the premises of
appellant’s store and the consequent seizure of incriminating evidence found
therein, this Court finds that both search and seizure were valid.

That searches and seizures must be supported by a valid warrant
is not an absolute rule [Manipon, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 58889, July
31, 1986, 143 SCRA 267.] Among the exceptions granted by law is a search
incidental to a lawful arrest under Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules on
Criminal Procedure, which provides that “[a] person lawfully arrested may be
searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the
commission of an offense, without a search warrant.” In such an instance, a
contemporaneous search may be conducted upon the person of the arrestee and the
immediate vicinity where the arrest was made [Nolasco v. Pano, G.R. No. 69803,
January 30, 1987, 147 SCRA 509], as was done in this case. The inclusion of the seized items in the
evidence for the prosecution cannot be challenged as they were seized in
conformity with the provision on lawful searches.

All told, this Court is convinced that appellant Adelina
Castiller had indeed committed the offense as charged. The assailed decision must be upheld. The trial court aptly quoted the dictum of this Court in the case
of People v. Abedes [G.R. No.
73399, November 28, 1986, 146 SCRA 132]: “A drug pusher is a killer without mercy. He poisons the mind and deadens the body. He deserves no mercy.” Our society has every
right to be protected from the potential and actual harm wrought by prohibited
drugs.

WHEREFORE, the
decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., and
Feliciano, JJ., concur.

Bidin, J., on leave.