FACTS:

Hilario Macasling, Jr. appealed his conviction for violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6425, as amended. He was charged with selling, delivering, and transporting 50 grams of shabu, a prohibited drug. The evidence showed that Lt. Obrera received a call from the Chief of the Narcotics Command, informing him that Macasling would be delivering shabu at a hotel in Baguio City. Lt. Obrera formed a team and waited in a hotel room for Macasling. When Macasling arrived, he was found to be in possession of a package containing 50 grams of shabu. Macasling and another person were arrested and brought to the police station. The shabu was sent for examination and its presence was confirmed. During the investigation, Editha Gagarin was initially included but was later excluded based on a letter written by Macasling admitting sole responsibility for the act. Macasling raised several errors in his appeal, including the legality of the arrest and seizure, the applicability of R.A. No. 6425, and the deprivation of his constitutional rights.

The accused in a separate case appealed his conviction for violation of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6425. He argued that shabu, the term used in the information, is not a dangerous drug under the law. However, the trial court ruled that shabu is a derivative of amphetamine, which is a regulated drug under the law. The court held that shabu is the street name for methamphetamine hydrochloride and its chemical composition includes amphetamine. Laboratory examination of the crystalline granules recovered from the accused confirmed that it was indeed methamphetamine hydrochloride. The court disregarded the use of the term shabu and held that the accused is still legally responsible under the relevant provisions of the law.

In another case, the accused was charged with illegal possession and transportation of dangerous drugs. During a buy-bust operation, the accused was apprehended and found in possession of a plastic sachet containing suspected shabu. The seized items were marked, and a representative sample was submitted for laboratory examination. The laboratory report confirmed that the substance was indeed methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. As a result, the accused was formally charged in court for violation of the anti-drug law.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the use of the term "shabu" instead of "methamphetamine hydrochloride" in the criminal information affects the legal responsibility of the appellant.

2. Whether the imprecision in the specification of the appropriate section of R.A. No. 6425 as amended in the criminal information affects the case.

3. Whether appellant's right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him was violated.

4. Whether the arrest of the appellant was lawful.

5. Whether the arrest of appellant was lawful considering that the arresting officers did not have a warrant of arrest or a search warrant.

6. Whether the lack of a warrant of arrest is fatal to the validity of the arrest.

7. Whether the warrantless arrest of the accused inside Room No. 77 was lawful.

8. Whether the taking of the shabu from the accused was done immediately before, or was an incident of, a lawful arrest.

9. Whether the accused's defense of lack of knowledge about the shabu is credible.

RULING:

1. The use of the term "shabu" instead of "methamphetamine hydrochloride" in the criminal information does not affect the legal responsibility of the appellant under the provisions of R.A. No. 6425 as amended. Shabu is a street name for methamphetamine hydrochloride, which is a regulated drug. The fact that the laboratory examination yielded metamphetamine hydrochloride confirms the nature of the substance involved in the case.

2. The imprecision in the specification of the appropriate section of R.A. No. 6425 as amended in the criminal information does not have consequences in this case. It is the character of the acts charged and proven that is important, rather than the correctness of the designation of the section and article violated. Furthermore, the penalty provided for in Section 4 (life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P20,000.00 to P30,000.00) is the same penalty imposed in Section 15.

3. Appellant's right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him was not violated. The acts with which he was charged are clearly set out in the operative portion of the criminal information. The use of the term "prohibited drug" was merely a conclusion of law, which is for the court to determine, and does not affect the accused's right to be informed.

4. The arrest of the appellant was not unlawful.

5. The arrest of appellant was lawful. The court held that the circumstances surrounding the arrest constituted a valid entrapment operation. The arresting officers had received information about a transaction involving the delivery of shabu in Room No. 77 of the hotel. The appellant, along with the undercover agent and another individual, arrived at the designated room for the delivery. The sale may have taken place in a different location but the delivery was arranged to be made at the hotel. The court considered the situation as an extension of a buy-bust operation, as the sale was agreed upon in one place but the delivery was to be made in another place. The court emphasized that the waiting and deployment of the arresting officers inside the room were based on prior intelligence information and not a random search or arrest.

6. The lack of a warrant of arrest is not fatal to the validity of the arrest. The court ruled that the arrest fell under the exception provided for in Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, which allows warrantless arrests when an offender is caught in the act of committing an offense or attempting to commit the offense in the presence of a peace officer. Since the appellant was actually in the act of delivering the shabu during his arrest, the lack of a warrant did not invalidate the arrest.

7. The warrantless arrest of the accused inside Room No. 77 was lawful. The accused had no reason to be there unless he was the party delivering the shabu. The arresting officers had the right to pounce on him immediately to prevent escape or tipping off.

8. The taking of the shabu from the accused was either done immediately before, or was an incident of, a lawful arrest. It was part of the entrapment operation.

9. The trial court found the accused's defense of lack of knowledge about the shabu contrived and improbable. The appellate court saw no reason to overturn this finding and emphasized the deference that should be given to the trial court's appraisal of witness credibility.

PRINCIPLES:

• The use of the term "shabu" instead of "methamphetamine hydrochloride" in the criminal information does not affect the legal responsibility of the accused, as long as it is proven that the substance involved is a regulated drug.

• The imprecision in the specification of the appropriate section of the law violated in the criminal information does not affect the case, as long as the character of the acts charged and proven is clear.

• The accused's right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him is satisfied as long as the acts with which he is charged are clearly set out in the operative portion of the criminal information.

• The lawfulness of an arrest is determined by whether it is conducted in accordance with the requirements of the law.

• A valid entrapment operation can justify a warrantless arrest even if there is no warrant of arrest or search warrant.

• Warrantless arrests are permitted under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court when an offender is caught in the act of committing an offense or attempting to commit the offense in the presence of a peace officer.

• The lack of a warrant of arrest is not fatal if the arrest falls under the exception for warrantless arrests.

• Law enforcement officers have the right to pounce on suspects immediately to prevent escape or tipping off in situations where the suspect has no legitimate reason to be present.

• The taking of prohibited items from a suspect can be considered part of a lawful arrest or an incident thereof in an entrapment operation.

• Appellate courts generally accord great respect to the trial court's appraisal of witness credibility, as they do not deal with live witnesses but only with the written record.