Case Digest (G.R. No. 125299)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Florencio Doria y Bolado, and Violeta Gaddao y Catama, G.R. No. 125299, January 22, 1999, the Supreme Court En Banc, Puno, J., writing for the Court.On December 5, 1995, Narcom agents of the North Metropolitan District, PNP, acting on information from two confidential informants, arranged a buy‑bust meeting in Mandaluyong City. PO3 Celso Manlangit acted as the poseur‑buyer and was given marked bills totaling P1,600.00 by his team. At the prearranged spot a man identified as “Jun” (later shown to be Florencio Doria y Bolado) handed Manlangit a brick of what the latter believed to be marijuana; Doria was arrested. Doria allegedly said he left the money at the house of his associate “Neneth,” and the police proceeded to the house of Violeta Gaddao y Catama. There, police found a partially open carton under the dining table; Manlangit saw a plastic‑wrapped object in it, took the box, and the marked buy‑bust money was recovered from the house (testimony differs as to whether from her person or the house). Ten additional bricks were later found in the box; laboratory examination showed eleven bricks totaling 7,641.08 grams of marijuana.
Doria and Gaddao denied the prosecution’s version. Doria testified he was accosted and made to point out another’s house; he denied selling drugs. Gaddao said she was caring for her children and fetching water when Manlangit seized her; she denied knowledge of the box or the money.
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 156, Pasig City, acting as Special Court, convicted both appellants of violation of Section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Act (R.A. No. 6425, as amended by R.A. No. 7659), finding an organized/syndicated crime group and sentencing bo...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the buy‑bust operation and the ensuing warrantless arrest of Florencio Doria lawful and did the evidence establish no entrapment/instigation so as to sustain his conviction for sale of marijuana?
- Was the warrantless arrest of Violeta Gaddao lawful, and were the warrantless search and seizure of the carton and the marked money admissible under any exception (search incident to arrest, plain view, or other)...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)