This document summarizes a court case from the Philippines involving Armando De Lara Y Galaro who was found guilty of violating drug laws. The police conducted surveillance and confirmed that appellant and others were involved in drug pushing activities in a certain area of Manila. On January 25, 1995, undercover officer Martin Orolfo bought two foil packets of marijuana from appellant. Appellant was apprehended and admitted to keeping more drugs in his house. While appellant claimed the drugs were planted, the court found his arrest and the seizure of drugs from his house were lawful based on him being caught in the act of selling drugs. His conviction and sentence of life imprisonment plus a fine were upheld on appeal.
This document summarizes a court case from the Philippines involving Armando De Lara Y Galaro who was found guilty of violating drug laws. The police conducted surveillance and confirmed that appellant and others were involved in drug pushing activities in a certain area of Manila. On January 25, 1995, undercover officer Martin Orolfo bought two foil packets of marijuana from appellant. Appellant was apprehended and admitted to keeping more drugs in his house. While appellant claimed the drugs were planted, the court found his arrest and the seizure of drugs from his house were lawful based on him being caught in the act of selling drugs. His conviction and sentence of life imprisonment plus a fine were upheld on appeal.
This document summarizes a court case from the Philippines involving Armando De Lara Y Galaro who was found guilty of violating drug laws. The police conducted surveillance and confirmed that appellant and others were involved in drug pushing activities in a certain area of Manila. On January 25, 1995, undercover officer Martin Orolfo bought two foil packets of marijuana from appellant. Appellant was apprehended and admitted to keeping more drugs in his house. While appellant claimed the drugs were planted, the court found his arrest and the seizure of drugs from his house were lawful based on him being caught in the act of selling drugs. His conviction and sentence of life imprisonment plus a fine were upheld on appeal.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ARMANDO DE LARA Y GALARO, accused-appellant. The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. Tan, Manzano & Velez for accused-appellant. !IASON, J.: This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Manila in Criminal Case !o. "#"$%, finding appellant guilt& 'e&ond reasona'le dou't of violating (ection # of Repu'lic )ct !o. *#2$, as amended '& B.+. Blg. ,-". . The .nformation charged appellant as follo/s0 That on or a'out 1anuar& ", ,"-, in the Cit& of Manila, +hilippines, the said accused, not 'eing authorized '& la/ to sell, deliver, give a/a& to another or distri'ute an& prohi'ited drug, did then and there /illfull& and unla/full& sell or offer for sale t/o 223 foils of flo/ering tops of mari4uana and one 2,3 plastic 'ag of flo/ering tops of mari4uana, /hich are prohi'ited drugs 2Rollo, p. *3. 5pon arraignment, appellant, assisted '& his counsel de parte, pleaded not guilt& to the information 2Records p. $3. .. 6n 7ecem'er ,$, ,"*, Capt. Restituto Ca'la&an of the !ational Criminal .nvestigation (ervice 2!C.(3 of the 8estern +olice 7istrict 28+73, instructed (gt. 9nri:ue 7avid to conduct a surveillance operation in the vicinit& of ;arrido and <amora (treets at (ta. )na, Manila, after receiving reports of rampant drug-pushing in that area 2T(!, 7ecem'er ,#, ,"-, p. 2,3. .n compliance thereof, a team led '& (gt. 9nri:ue 7avid, conducted a surveillance operation on 7ecem'er ,$ and ,-, and confirmed the reported drug-pushing activities in that area '& the group of appellant and a certain Ric=& alias >+ila&> 2T(!, 7ecem'er 2, ,"-, pp. $-*3. !o arrest /as made 'ecause the team /as instructed '& their superior to conduct a surveillance operation onl& 2T(!, 1anuar& ,,, ,", p. 23. 6n 1anuar& , ,"-, Mala&a 29?h. >@>3 and +eopleAs Tonight 29?h. >B>3, reported that there /ere rampant, drug-pushing activities in the vicinit& of ;arrido and <amora (treets in (ta. )na, Manila, prompting ;en. )lfredo Cim, then 8+7 (uperintendent, to reprimand the !C.( office 2T(!, 7ecem'er 2, ,"-, p. 23. 6n 1anuar& ", 'ecause of the reprimand given '& ;en. Cim, Capt. Ca'la&an instructed (gt. 7avid to plan a 'u&-'ust operation and to form a si?-man team /ith +fc. Martin 6rolfo, 1r. as the poseur-'u&er 2T(!, 7ecem'er 2, ,"-, p. *, 1anuar& ,,, ,", p. *3. )t around #0#$ +.M. of the same da&, the team, together /ith their confidential informant, /ent to ;arrido (treet. 5pon arriving threat, the& strategicall& positioned themselves. +fc. 6rolfo, 1r. and the confidential informant proceeded to the house of appellant located at !o. 22*- ;arrido (treet, /here the& sa/ him standing outside. The confidential informant introduced +fc. 6rolfo, 1r. to appellant as an interested 'u&er of mari4uana. )ppellant as=ed +fc. 6rolfo, 1r. >.lan ang 'i'ilhin nin&oD> 2Eo/ much /ill &ou 'u&D3. +fc. 6rolfo, 1r., replied0 >T/o foils> handing at the same time the mar=ed t/ent&-peso 'ill 29?h. >9>3 to appellant. The latter, after placing the mone& in the right poc=et of his pants, /ent inside his house 2T(!, 1anuar& ,,, ,", pp. --"3. Minutes later, appellant came 'ac= and handed t/o foils 29?hs. >7-,-a> and >7-,-'>3 /rapped in onion paper 2T(!, 1anuar& ,,, ,", p. 3. .t /as after he handed the t/o foils to +fc. 6rolfo 1r., that he sensed the presence of the police operatives. Ee then tried to retrieve the t/o foils 'ut +fc. 6rolfo, 1r. prevented him from doing so. 7uring the scuffle, one foil /as torn. )ppellant then ran inside his house /ith +fc. 6rolfo, 1r. in pursuit. The latter /as a'le to su'due appellant. (gt. 7avid confronted appellant, /ho admitted that he =ept prohi'ited drugs in his house. )ppellant sho/ed the arresting officers a 'lue plastic 'ag /ith /hite lining containing prohi'ited drugs. ) receipt of the articles seized 29?h. >@>3 /as made '& +fc. 6rolfo, 1r. 2T(!, 1anuar& ,,, ,", pp. ,2-,$3. Thereafter, the team, together /ith appellant, proceeded to the 8+7 head:uarters for investigation. Thereat, (gt. 7avid ordered +fc. 6rolfo, 1r. to commence the investigation of appellant 2T(!, 1anuar& ,,, ,", pp. ,"-2,3. 7uring the investigation, appellant /as apprised of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to have the assistance of counsel. 8hen appellant /as as=ed to give a /ritten statement, he refused to do so pending arrival of his la/&er 2T(!, 1anuar& ,,, ,", p. 2%3. The prohi'ited drugs seized from appellant /ere 'rought to the !B. for chemical anal&sis. ) report and certification of Ms. )ida +ascual, @orensic Chemist of the !B. 29?hs. >C> and >7>3, sho/ the drugs to 'e positive for mari4uana. )ppellant denied having sold mari4uana to an&one and claimed that the arresting officers merel& planted the mari4uana on his person. Ee testified that on 1anuar& ", ,"-, he arrived home from /or= as a securit& guard of the Vergara Brothers )genc& at around %0FF +.M. )fter changing his clothes, he /ent out to fetch his son, /ho /as left in the care of a neigh'or. 5pon returning to his house /ith his son, he /as arrested '& the police. The police proceeded to search his house, /ithout an& search /arrant sho/n to him. )fter the search, he and his /ife /ere 'rought to the 8+7 head:uarters. Ee claimed that inspite of his protestation that he /ould li=e to /ait for his la/&er 'efore giving an& statement, the police continued their interrogation. )ppellant denied that the t/ent&-peso 'ill /as given to him '& the poseur-'u&er. Ee claimed that he /as merel& forced to sign his name on the photocop& of the t/ent&-peso 'ill 29?h. >@>3 and that the first time he sa/ the 'lue plastic 'ag containing prohi'ited drugs /as /hen he /as at the police station 2T(!, 1une ,#, ,", pp. ,-,,3. To corro'orate his stor&, appellant presented his &ounger 'rother, ;err& de Cara. 6n 6cto'er 2, ,"", the trial court rendered its decision, disposing as follo/s0 8E9R9@6R9, 4udgment is here'& rendered finding the accused guilt& 'e&ond reasona'le dou't of violation of (ec #, )rt .. of R.). *#2$ as amended as charged in the .nformationG and this Court here'& sentences the accused to suffer a penalt& of life imprisonment and to pa& a fine of +2F,FFF.FF 2Rollo, p. 2#3. Eence, this appeal. ... .n his appeal, appellant :uestions the legalit& of his arrest and the seizure of prohi'ited drugs found inside his house. @urthermore, he claims that he /as not assisted '& counsel during his custodial interrogation 2Rollo, pp. $$-$-3. )s to the legalit& of appellantAs arrest, /e find that the police operatives acted /ithin the 'ounds of la/. (ection $, Rule ,,% of the ,"$ Rules on Criminal +rocedures dealing /ith /arrantless arrests provides0 )rrest /ithout /arrantG /hen la/ful. H ) peace officer or a private person ma&, /ithout a /arrant, arrest a personG a3 8hen, in his presence, the person to 'e arrested has committed, is actuall& committing, or is attempting to commit an offenseG '3 8hen an offense has in fact 4ust 'een committed and he has personal =no/ledge of facts indicating that the person to 'e arrested has committed itG ??? ??? ??? .n the case at 'ench, appellant /as caught red-handed in delivering t/o tin foils of mari4uana to +at. 6rolfo, 1r., the poseur-'u&er. )ppl&ing the aforementioned provision of la/, appellantAs arrest /as la/full& effected /ithout need of a /arrant of arrest. >Eaving caught the appellant in flagrante as a result of the 'u&-'ust operation, the policemen /ere not onl& authorized 'ut /ere also under o'ligation to apprehend the drug pusher even /ithout a /arrant of arrest> 2+eople v. Balu'iran, ,"* (CR) *## I,"",JG People vs. De Los Santos, 2FF (CR) #%, I,"",J3. )ppellant, ho/ever, asseverates that his arrest /as precipitated onl& '& ne/spaper pu'lications a'out the rampant sale of drugs along ;arrido and <amora (treets, (ta. )na, Manila 2Rollo, p. $%3. .f appellant implies that the police merel& stage-managed his arrest in order to sho/ that the& /ere not remiss in their duties, then appellant is /rong. ) surveillance on the illegal activities of the appellant /as alread& conducted '& the police as earl& as 7ecem'er ,$ and ,-, ,"*. The ne/spaper reports concerning the illegal drug activities came out onl& on 1anuar& and ,#, ,"-, long after the police =ne/ of the said illegal activities. )ppellantAs eventual arrest on 1anuar& ", ,"- /as the result of the surveillance conducted and the 'u&-'ust operation. The evidence sho/s that appellant ran inside his house upon sensing the presence of the police operatives. The testimon& of +at. 6rolfo, 1r., the poseur-'u&er, is as follo/s0 @.(C)C0 K0 )fter placing the +2F 'ill in his right poc=et, /hat did he doD )0 Ee /ent to his house and minutes later, he came 'ac=, sir. K0 8hen he came 'ac= /hat happenedD )0 Ee handed to me t/o tin foils containing suspected mari4uana leaves /rapped in onion paper. K0 )nd /hat happened ne?t /hen he returned /ith those itemsD )0 )fter he handed to me t/o foils, he sensed the presence of the operatives and he tried to retrieve the t/o foils, sir, and . prevented him and during the scuffle one piece of foil /as 'ro=en, he tried to run inside the house, so . su'dued him immediatel& and apprehended him /hile he /as inside the house. K0 )fter he /as su'dued '& &our group, /hat happenedD )0 (gt. 7avid confronted him regarding this case and he voluntaril& admitted that he /as still =eeping prohi'ited drugs inside his houseD K0 8hat did the group do after he voluntaril& admitted that he /as =eeping prohi'ited drugs inside his houseD )0 Ee pointed inside his house 2sic3 one plastic 'ag colored 'lue /ith /hite lining containing prohi'ited drug> 2T(!, 1anuar& ,,, ,", pp. ,2-,#3. The policemenAs entr& into the house of appellant /ithout a search /arrant /as in hot-pursuit of a person caught committing an offense in flagrante. The arrest that follo/ed the hot-pursuit /as valid 2,"$ Rules on Criminal +rocedure, Rule ,,%, (ection $IaJ3. 8e also find as valid the seizure of the plastic 'ag of prohi'ited drugs found inside appellantAs house. The seizure of the plastic 'ag containing prohi'ited drugs /as the result of appellantAs arrest inside his house. ) contemporaneous search ma& 'e conducted upon the person of the arrestee and the immediate vicinit& /here the arrest /as made 2+eople v. Castiller, , (CR) %-* I,""FJ3. 8e find to 'e meritorious appellantAs claim that he /as not assisted '& counsel during the custodial investigation, specificall& /hen he /as forced to sign the photocop& of the mar=ed t/ent&-peso 'ill 29?h. >9>3, Receipt of +ropert& (eized 29?h. >@>3, and the Boo=ing and .nformation (heet 29?h. >E>3. The said documents are inadmissi'le in evidence for the reason that there /as no sho/ing that appellant /as then assisted '& counsel nor his /aiver thereto put into /riting 2Constitution, )rt. ..., (ec. %I2J3. Be that as it ma&, the re4ection of said evidence /ould not affect the conviction of appellant in vie/ of the a'undance of other evidence esta'lishing his guilt. The ruling in People v. Mauyao, 2F- (CR) -%2 2,""23 isapropos0 .t 'ears emphasis, ho/ever, that the accused appellantAs conformit& to the :uestioned documents has not 'een a factor at all in his conviction. @or even if these documents /ere disregarded, still the accused-appellantAs guilt has 'een ade:uatel& esta'lished '& other evidence of record. The trial courtAs verdict /as 'ased on the evidence of the prosecution not on his signatures on the :uestioned documents. )ccused-appellantAs denial simpl& can not prevail over the detailed and unsha=en testimonies of the apprehending officers /ho caught him red-handed selling mari4uana and /ho have not sho/n to have an& ulterior motive to testif& falsel& against accused-appellant. .V The trial court sentenced appellant to suffer the penalt& of life imprisonment and to pa& a fine of +2F,FFF.FF pursuant to (ection #, )rticle .. of the 7angerous 7rugs )ct of ,"-2, as amended '& B.+. Blg. ,-". Eo/ever, said la/ /as further amended '& R.). !o. -*$". 5nder (ection ,- of R.). !o. -*$", the penalt& to 'e imposed for selling, administering, delivering or distri'uting less than -$F grams of mari4uana, shall range from "prision correccional to reclusion perpetua depending upon the :uantit&.> 5nder (ection # of R.). !o. -*$", the penalt& for selling, dispensing, delivering, transporting or distri'uting mari4uana in e?cess of -$F grams or more shall 'e >reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from @ive Eundred Thousand +esos to Ten Million +esos.> 8e noticed that the penalt& of reclusion perpetua /as imposed '& R.). !o. -*$" as the ma?imum penalt& /hen the :uantit& of the mari4uana involved in the offense is less than -$F grams and at the same time as the minimum penalt& /hen the :uantit& of mari4uana involved is -$F grams or more. .t is the dut& of the Court to harmonize conflicting provisions to give effect to the /hole la/ 2Rufino Copez and (ons v. Court of )ppeals, ,FF +hil. $F I,"$-J3. @urthermore, one of this CourtAs primordial responsi'ilities is to give a statute its sensi'le construction. This is to effectuate the intention of the legislature so as to avoid an a'surd conclusion /ith regard to its meaning 2Cam' v. +hipps, 22 +hil. #$* I,",2J3. Therefore, /hen the :uantit& involved is less than -$F grams, (ection ,- of R.). !o. -*$" should 'e read correctl& to provide a penalt& ranging from prision correccional to reclusion teporal onl&. The provision of )rticle 22 of the Revised +enal Code, /hich states that >penal la/s shall have a retroactive effect insofar as the& favor the person guilt& of a felon&,> finds meaning in this case. )ppellant is entitled to 'enefit from the reduction of the penalt& introduced '& R.). !o. -*$". .n order to determine the penalt& to 'e imposed on appellant, /e first divide the amount of -$F grams into three to correspond to the three applica'le penalties, namel&, prision correccional, prision ayor and reclusion teporal. .f the mari4uana involved is from $FF to -#" grams, the penalt& to 'e imposed is reclusion teporal. .f the mari4uana involved is from 2$F to #"" grams, the penalt& to 'e imposed is prision ayor and if the /eight of the mari4uana involved is 'elo/ 2$F grams, the penalt& to 'e imposed is prision correccional. (ince there is no evidence as to the /eight of the t/o foils and one plastic 'ag of flo/ering tops of mari4uana seized from appellant, /e resolve the dou't in favor of appellant and conclude that the :uantit& involved /as0 2i3 'elo/ -$F gramsG and 2ii3 not less than 2$F 'ut not more than #"" grams. Eence, the ma?imum penalt& that can 'e imposed on appellant is prision ayor. )ppl&ing the .ndeterminate (entence Ca/ to appellant, /ho /as convicted under a special la/ 2+eople vs. Macantando, ,F" (CR) %$ I,",J3, and as such la/ /as interpreted in People v. Sion, ;.R. !o. "%F2, 1ul& 2", ,""#, the minimum penalt& that can 'e imposed on appellant should 'e /ithin the range of prision correccional. 8E9R9@6R9, the 7ecision appealed from is )@@.RM97 /ith the modification that appellant shall suffer an indeterminate penalt& of @65R 2#3 &ears and T86 223 da&s of prision correccional, as minimum, to 9.;ET 23 &ears and 6!9 2,3 da& of prision ayor, as ma?imum. (6 6R79R97.