20 PEOPLE V. DORIA
Manlangit marked the bills with his initials and listed
G.R No. 125299 | January 22, 1999 | Puno, J.
SUMMARY:
Members of the PNP Narcotics Command received information that
one “ Jun” [Doria] was engaged in illegal drug activities, so they
decided to entrap and arrest him in a buy-bust operation. They frisked
him but did not find the marked bills on him, and upon inquiry, he
revealed that he left it at the house of his associate “Neneth ” Gaddao,
so he led the police team to her house. Standing by the door’s house,
PO3 Manlangit noticed a carton box under the dining table. He peeked
inside the box and saw 10 bricks of what appeared to be dried
marijuana leaves. Doria and Gaddao were charged with violation of
RA 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) and convicted by the RTC. The
SC held that Gaddao ’s warrantless arrest was illegal because she was
arrested solely on the basis of the alleged identification made by Doria.
Doria was sentenced to reclusion perpetua while Gaddao was
acquitted.
DOCTRINE/PROVISIONS APPLICABLE:
Sec. 5, Rule 113, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure
Search and seizure may be made without a warrant and the evidence
obtained therefrom may be admissible in the following instances:
(1) search incident to a lawful arrest;
(2) search of a moving motor vehicle;
(3) search in violation of customs laws;
(4) seizure of evidence in plain view;
(5) when the accused himself waives his right against unreasonable
searches and seizures
FACTS:
Prosecution’s version:
 November 1995 – Members of the PNP Narcom received
information from 2 civilian informants (CI): “Jun” was engaged
in illegal drug activities in Mandaluyong City.
 Narcom decided to entrap and arrest Jun in a buy-bust
operation. A meeting between the agents and Jun was
scheduled on December 5, 1995.
 Team Alpha was formed and PO3 Manlangit was designated as
the poseur-buyer, with SPO1 as back-up. The team was given 2k
for operational expenses, 1.6k was set aside for the buy-bust
operation.
their serial numbers in the police blotter.
 7:20am- Manlangit introduced himself to Jun as someone
interested in buying a kilo of marijuana (MJ). Manlangit handed
Jun the marked bills worth P1, 600.00. Jun asked for Manlangit to
wait for him while he got the MJ. Jun arrived an hour later and
took out from his bag an object wrapped in plastic and handed
it to Manlangit.
 Manlangit arrested Jun, and Badua rushed to help. They frisked
Jun but did not find the marked bills on him.
 Jun told them that he left the money at Neneth’s house (where
he got the MJ).
 They went to Neneth’s house and found her inside. They asked
Neneth about the 1.6k while Manlangit looked over the house.
 Manlangit noticed a carton box under the dining table, he saw
that inside it was something wrapped in plastic similar to the
object sold to him. He peeked inside the box and found that it
contained 10 bricks of dried MJ leaves.
 Badua also recovered the marked bills from Neneth, and she
was arrested.
 Both Jun and Neneth, together with the box, and the marked
bills were turned over to the investigator at headquarters.
 It was later revealed that Jun is actually Florencio Doria, while
Neneth is Violeta Gaddao.
 The bricks were examined and found to be dried marijuana
fruiting tops.
Doria’s version:
 7am: Florencio “Jun” Doria was at the gate of his house reading
a tabloid. Two men appeared and asked if he knew a certain
“Totoy” and he denied knowing any “Totoy” because there
were many “Totoys”.
 The men took accused-appellant inside his house and accused
him of being a pusher.
 He denied the accusation, the men led him to their car and
ordered him to point out the house of “Totoy”. He gave in and
took them to Totoy’s house.
 Doria knocked on the door of the house but no one answered.
Manlangit pushed open the door and his companions entered
and looked around for 3 mins.
 The policemen went out and saw Gaddao carrying water from
the well, they asked her where Totoy was and she told them he
was not there.
  Doria overheard one of the policemen say that they found a
box inside the house. Doria looked inside the house and saw
that they were opening a box and found something inside.
 Manlangit ordered him and Violeta to board the car and were
brought to the headquarters to be investigated.
 Doria claims that Violeta Gaddao is the wife of Totoy Gaddao,
his drinking buddy.
 She contends that the testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses
should not be given weight because they were shot with
discrepancies, inconsistencies and that the corpus delicti of the
MJ allegedly taken was not positively identified by Manlangit.
 MJ Fruitings inside the carton box should not have been
admitted as evidence as these were obtained through a
warrantless search.
Gaddao’s Version:
 Violeta “Neneth” Gaddao was at her house where she lived with
her husband and 5 children: Arvy, 10, Arjay 8, Raymond &
Raynan 5, Jason 3.
 Her husband left for Pangasinan five days earlier.
 Arvy left for school. She carried Jayson (nagbago spelling) and
accompanied Arjay to school, leaving the twins at home.
 On their way back, they passed by the artesian well to fetch
water, she was pumping water when a man clad in short pants
and denim jacket suddenly appeared and grabbed her left
wrist.
 Manlangit pulled her and took her to her house.
 She found Doria and 3 other persons inside her house.
 She was asked about the box, it was the first time she saw it. The
men opened it and showed her its contents, she denied
knowing anything about the box/contents.
 She confirmed that Doria was a friend of her husband.
 She denied the allegation that the marked bills were found in
her person.
 She contends that the police version of the manner the alleged
buy-bust operation was conducted is incredible.
 The search was not valid because it was a warrantless search.
RTC convicted both (existence of an organized/syndicated crime
group) and sentenced to death and a P500K fine.
ISSUES w/ HOLDING & RATIO:
[1] WON the buy-bust operation, which resulted in Doria’s
apprehension, was valid. — YES
 Buy-bust operation – form of entrapment employed by peace
officers as an effective way of apprehending a criminal in the
act of the commission of an offense.
o Has received judicial sanction when undertaken with
due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards
 Entrapment (as defined in AmJur)
o Subjective (Sorrells v. US): the conception and planning
of an offense by an officer, and his procurement of its
commission by one who would not have perpetrated it
except for trickery, persuasion or fraud of the
officer…the origin of the criminal design is in the minds of
the officials rather than the defendant.
o Objective (Grossman v. State): the inquiry is focused on
the inducements used by government agents, on police
conduct, not on the accused and his predisposition to
commit the crime. The test of entrapment is whether the
conduct of the law enforcement agent was likely to
induce a normally law-abiding person, other than one
who is ready and willing, to commit the offense.
o Hybrid (Cruz v. State): the permissibility of police conduct
must first be determined. If this objective test is satisfied,
then the analysis turns to whether the accused was
predisposed to commit the crime.
 In every arrest, there is a certain amount of
entrapment used to outwit the person violating
or about to violate the law.
 The kind of entrapment that is prohibited is one
where the accused is induced into committing
an offense. However, if the criminal design
originates from the accused’s mind, and the
criminal offense is completed the fact that a
person acting as a decoy for the state, or public
officials furnished the accused an opportunity for
commission of the offense, or that the accused is
aided in the commission of the crime in order to
secure the evidence necessary to prosecute
him, there is no entrapment and the accused
must be convicted.
 AmJur: Entrapment is a valid defense, but it is up
to the defendant to provide sufficient evidence
to establish such, if successful, the burden shifts to
the prosecution to show otherwise.
 Entrapment v. Instigation
 o People v. Galicia: The instigator practically induces the
would-be accused into the commission of the offense
and himself becomes a co- principal. In entrapment,
ways and means are resorted to by the peace officer for
the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreaker
in the execution of his criminal plan.
o In our jurisprudence, entrapment is not a defense
available to the accused, but instigation is.
 In this case, Manlangit testified in a frank, spontaneous,
straightforward and categorical manner, his credibility was not
crumpled on cross-examination. His testimony was also
corroborated.
 The non-presentation of the confidential informant is not fatal to
the prosecution. Informants are usually not presented in court
because of the need to hide their identity and preserve their
invaluable service to the police.
 The inconsistencies with the police officer’s testimonies are
minor and do not detract from the veracity and weight of the
prosecution’s evidence.
 Contrary to Doria’s claim, the one kilo of marijuana sold by him
was positively identified before the trial court.
 Section 5, Rule 113 , 1986 Rules on Criminal Procedure provides:
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; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who 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.
 Under, Section 5(a), Doria was caught in the act of committing
an offense. When an accused is apprehended in flagrante
delicto as a result of a buy-bust operation, the police are not
only authorized but dutybound to arrest him even without a
warrant.
[2] WON the warrantless arrest of Gaddao, the search of her person and
house, and the admission of the pieces of evidence obtained
therefrom was valid. - NO
 Search and seizure may be made without a warrant and the
evidence obtained therefrom may be admissible in the
following instances:
(1) search incident to a lawful arrest;
(2) search of a moving motor vehicle;
(3) search in violation of customs laws;
(4) seizure of evidence in plain view;
(5) when the accused himself waives his right against unreasonable
searches and seizures
 Prosecution claims that the warrants were not necessary for the
search and arrest because it was made in “hot pursuit” and the
search was an incident to her lawful arrest.
 Gaddao was not caught red-handed during a buy-bust
operation to give ground for her arrest, she was not committing
any crime. There was no occasion for her to flee from the
policemen as she was going about her daily chores.
 Neither could Gaddao’s arrest be justified under the 2nd
instance of Rule 113.
 Personal knowledge of facts in arrests without warrant must be
based upon probable cause which means actual belief or
reasonable grounds of suspicion
o Reasonable – when, in the absence of actual belief of
the arresting officers, the suspicion that the person to be
arrested is probably guilty of committing the offense, is
based on actual facts; founded on probable cause,
coupled with good faith on the part of the peace
officers
 Gaddao was arrested solely on the basis of the alleged
identification made by Doria.
 Manlangit claims that Doria names Gaddao in response to his
query as to where the marked money was. Doria did not say
Gaddao was his associate in the drug business but merely the
person with whom he left the money. This identification does not
necessarily lead to the conclusion that Gaddao conspired with
Doria to push the drugs.
 The Narcom had no reasonable grounds to believe that she was
engaged in drug-pushing.
 Since her arrest is illegal, it follows that the search of her person
and home and the subsequent seizure of the marked bills and
marijuana cannot be deemed legal as incident to her arrest.
  The "plain view" doctrine applies when the following requisites
concur:
(a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a
prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he
can view a particular area;
(b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent;
(c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he
observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise
subject to seizure.
 Plain view - if the object itself is plainly exposed to sight. The
difficulty arises when the object is inside a closed container.
 Where the object seized was inside a closed package, the
object itself is not in plain view and therefore cannot be seized
without a warrant. However, if the package proclaims its
contents, whether by its distinctive configuration, its
transparency, or if its contents are obvious to an observer, then
the contents are in plain view and may be seized.
 The police team were in Gaddao’s house because Doria Led
them there. They had no information on Gaddao until Doria
named her.
 The marijuana was not in plain view and its seizure without the
requisite search warrant.
o The bricks were covered in newspaper and placed
inside plastic bags.
 In every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, what is
material is the submission of proof that the sale took place
between the poseur-buyer and the seller thereof and the
presentation of the drug, i.e., the corpus delicti, as evidence in
court.
 The prosecution has clearly established the fact that in
consideration of P1,600.00 which he received, accused-
appellant Doria sold and delivered nine hundred seventy (970)
grams of marijuana to PO3 Manlangit, the poseur-buyer.
 The prosecution, however, has failed to prove that accused-
appellant Gaddao conspired with accused- appellant Doria in
the sale of said drug. There being no mitigating or aggravating
circumstances, the lower penalty of reclusion perpetua must be
imposed.
RULING:
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 156,
Pasig City acting as a Special Court in Criminal Case No. 3307-D is
reversed and modified as follows:
1. Accused-appellant Florencio Doria y Bolado is sentenced to suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of five hundred
thousand pesos (P500,000.00).
2. Accused-appellant Violeta Gaddao y Catama is acquitted.
CONCURRING (Panganiban, J.):
Valid Arrests Without Warrants
Sec. 5 of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court
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; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner
who 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 (a) and (b), the arresting officer must have personal
knowledge of the fact of the commission of an offense.
In Flagrante Delicto Arrests
 Section 5(a)
 Elements:
o Person to be arrested must execute an overt act
o Such overt act is done in the presence or within the view
of the arresting officer
 It is not sufficient that the suspect exhibits unusual or strange acts
or simply appears suspicious
 The behavior or conduct of the person to be arrested must be
clearly indicative of a criminal act.
“Hot Pursuit Arrests”
 Section 5(b)
 Elements:
 o "offense has in fact been committed"
o the arresting officer "has personal knowledge of facts
indicating that the person to be arrested . . . committed
[the offense]
 it is not enough that there is reasonable ground to believe that
the person to be arrested has committed a crime. A crime must
in fact or actually have been committed first
 while the law enforcers may not actually witness the execution
of acts constituting the offense, they must have direct
knowledge or view of the crime right after its commission.
 they must also perceive acts exhibited by the person to be
arrested, indicating that he perpetrated the crime
 arresting officers must have Personal Knowledge
o actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion, based
on actual facts, that the person to be arrested is
probably guilty of committing the crime
 In several cases wherein third persons gave law enforcers
information…such relayed information was not deemed
equivalent to personal knowledge of the lawmen
 Continuing offenses for which the culprit could be arrested any
time in flagrante delicto (Umil v. Ramos)
Valid Searches Without Warrant
 General rule: a judicial warrant must first be duly obtained
before search and seizure may be conducted.
 Allowable instances in which a search may be conducted
without a warrant:
1. Search Incident to Lawful Arrest
 Section 12 of Rule 126: a lawfully arrested person
may be searched without a warrant for dangerous
weapons or anything else that may be used as
evidence of the offense.
 Incidental search is, however, limited to the person
of the arrestee at the time of the apprehension. The
search cannot be extended to or made in a place
other than the place of the arrest.
2. The Plain View Doctrine
 Requisites:
o Officer is in a position where he has a clear
view of a particular area or has justification
for an intrusion
o Said officer inadvertently comes across (or
sees in plain view) a piece of incriminating
evidence
o It is immediately apparent to such officer that
the item he sees may be evidence of a crim
3. Search of Moving Vehicles
 Justified by practicability
4. Customs Searches
 Tariff and Customs Code: searches, seizures and
arrests may be made even without warrants, for
purposes of enforcing customs and tariff laws.
 allows police authorities to "enter, pass through or
search any land, enclosure, warehouse, store or
building, not being a dwelling house; and also to
inspect, search and examine any vessel or aircraft
and any trunk, package, box or envelope or any
person on board; or stop and search and examine
any vehicle, beast or person suspected of holding or
conveying any dutiable or prohibited article
introduced into the Philippines contrary to law
5. Search With Consent
 Waiver of any objection to the unresonableness or
invalidity of a search is a recognized exception to
the rule against a warrantless search.
 The consent to the search, however, must be express
knowing and voluntary. A search based merely on
implied acquiescene is not valid, because such
consent is not within the purview of the constitutional
gurantee, but only a passive conformity to the
search given under intimidating and coercive
circumstances
6. Stop and Frisk
 a police officer may after properly introducing
himself and making initial inquiries, approach and
restrain a person manifesting unusual and suspicious
conduct, in order to check, the latter's outer clothing
for possibly concealed weapons.
 mere suspicious behavior would not call for a "stop
and frisk." There must be a genuine reason, in
accordance with the police officer's experience
and the surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief
that the person to be held has weapons (or
contraband) concealed about him