View full case

PEOPLE v. ARMANDO DE LARA Y GALARO

FACTS:

The case is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court, which found the appellant guilty of violating Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6425. The appellant was charged with unlawfully selling or offering for sale prohibited drugs. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the information.

Prior to the appellant's arrest, Captain Restituto Cablayan of the National Criminal Investigation Service (NCIS) instructed Sgt. Enrique David to conduct a surveillance operation in the vicinity of Garrido and Zamora Streets in Sta. Ana, Manila due to reports of rampant drug-pushing in the area. The surveillance operation confirmed the reported drug-pushing activities involving the appellant and a certain Ricky alias "Pilay." The team did not make any arrest during the surveillance operation, as they were instructed to conduct surveillance only.

On January 9, 1987, after receiving reprimand due to the reported drug-pushing activities, Captain Cablayan instructed Sgt. David to plan a buy-bust operation. A six-man team was formed, with Pfc. Martin Orolfo, Jr. as the poseur-buyer. The team, accompanied by a confidential informant, went to Garrido Street where the appellant's house was located.

Pfc. Orolfo, Jr. and the confidential informant approached the appellant and expressed interest in buying marijuana. The appellant asked how much they wanted to buy and received a marked twenty-peso bill from Pfc. Orolfo, Jr. The appellant went inside his house and returned minutes later with two foils of marijuana wrapped in onion paper. As Pfc. Orolfo, Jr. was about to seize the drugs, the appellant tried to retrieve them but was prevented from doing so. They got into a scuffle, resulting in one foil being torn. Pfc. Orolfo, Jr. pursued the appellant into his house and subdued him.

Sgt. David confronted the appellant, who admitted to keeping prohibited drugs in his house. Appellant showed the arresting officers a blue plastic bag with white lining containing prohibited drugs. The team then brought the appellant to the Western Police District (WPD) headquarters for investigation. The appellant was informed of his constitutional rights but refused to give a written statement without the presence of his lawyer. The seized drugs were subsequently subjected to chemical analysis, which confirmed them to be marijuana.

During the trial, appellant denied selling marijuana and claimed that the drugs were planted on him by the arresting officers. He further alleged that he was arrested without a warrant and was not assisted by counsel during his custodial interrogation. The trial court, however, found the appellant guilty of violating the law and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of P20,000. The appellant appealed the decision, challenging the legality of his arrest, the seizure of drugs inside his house, and the absence of legal counsel during his interrogation.

ISSUES:

  1. Did the police operatives act within the bounds of the law in arresting the appellant?

  2. Was the search and seizure of prohibited drugs inside the appellant's house lawful?

  3. Was the appellant's constitutional right to counsel violated during his custodial interrogation?

RULING:

  1. Yes, the police operatives acted within the bounds of the law in arresting the appellant. Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure allows a peace officer to make a warrantless arrest when the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. In this case, the police received reports of rampant drug-pushing in a certain area and conducted surveillance, which confirmed the reported drug-pushing activities. When a buy-bust operation was planned and conducted, the appellant was caught selling prohibited drugs. Therefore, his arrest was lawful.

  2. Yes, the search and seizure of prohibited drugs inside the appellant's house was lawful. The arrest of the appellant was made in flagrante delicto, and in such cases, the police may search the person arrested and the area within his immediate control for weapons and evidence to prevent the destruction or removal thereof. In this case, when the appellant sensed the presence of the police operatives during the buy-bust operation, he attempted to retrieve the drugs he just handed to the poseur-buyer. The police prevented him from doing so and subsequently found a blue plastic bag containing prohibited drugs inside his house. The search and seizure were a necessary incident to a lawful arrest.

  3. The appellant's constitutional right to counsel was not violated during his custodial interrogation. He was properly apprised of his rights to remain silent and to have the assistance of counsel. Although he refused to give a written statement pending the arrival of his lawyer, there is no evidence to support his claim that the police continued to interrogate him against his will. The appellant's refusal to give a statement does not automatically render his arrest or the seizure of evidence unlawful.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure allows a peace officer to make a warrantless arrest when the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.

  • In flagrante delicto arrests, the police may search the person arrested and the area within his immediate control for weapons and evidence to prevent the destruction or removal thereof.

  • The accused's constitutional right to counsel during custodial interrogation must be respected, but the mere refusal to give a written statement does not automatically render an arrest or the seizure of evidence unlawful.