People vs. Manlangit

7/24/2019 People vs. Manlangit

1/10

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 189806

vs

FRANCISCO MANLANGIT y

TRESBALLES,

Accused-Appellant.

The Case

This is an appeal from the August 28, 2009 Decision[1]of the ourt of Appeals !A" in A-#.$. $-%.. &o. 0'2(',

)hich affirmed in totothe Decision dated *ul+ 12, 200([2]in riminal ase &os. 0'-(' and 0'-91 of the $egional Trial

ourt !$T", /ranch in aati it+. The $T found accused-appellant rancisco anlangit + Tres3alles guilt+ of drug-

sale and drug-use penali4ed 3+ $epu3lic Act &o. !$A" 91 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

The Fa!s

5n &o6em3er 2, 200', an information )as filed charging anlangit )ith 6iolating 7ection , Article of $A 91, as

follo)s

That on or a3out the 2th

da+ of &o6em3er 200', in the it+ of aati, :hilippines, and )ithin the

;urisdiction of this %onora3le ourt, the a3o6e-named accused, not 3eing la)full+ authori4ed 3+ la), did

then and there )illfull+ and feloniousl+ sell, gi6e a)a+, distri3ute and deli6er 4ero point 4ero four !0.0"

gram of eth+lamphetamine %+drochloride !sha3u", )hich is a dangerous drug.[']

5n Decem3er 11, 200', another information )as filed against anlangit for 3reach of 7ec. 1, Art. of $A 91, to )it

That sometime on or 3efore or a3out the 2th

da+ of &o6em3er 200', in the it+ of aati, :hilippines,

and )ithin the ;urisdiction of this %onora3le ourt, the a3o6e-named accused, not 3eing authori4ed 3+

la) to use dangerous drugs, and ha6ing 3een arrested and found positi6e for use of eth+lamphetamine,

after a confirmator+ test, did then and there )illfull+, unla)full+ and feloniousl+ use eth+lamphetamine,

a dangerous drug in 6iolation of the said la).[]

During the arraignment for 3oth cases, anlangit pleaded not guilt+. After)ards, the cases )ere tried ;ointl+.

At the trial of the case, the prosecution adduced e6idence as follo)s

5n &o6em3er 2, 200', the aati Anti-Drug A3use ouncil !ADA" luster office recei6ed information from an

informant that a certain &egro )as selling prohi3ited drugs along ol. 7antos 7treet at /rg+. 7outh
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/189806.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/189806.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/189806.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/189806.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/189806.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/189806.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/189806.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/189806.htm#_ftn4


2/10

em3o, aati it+. The ADA thereafter coordinated )ith the Anti-llegal Drugs 7pecial 5perations Tas orce

!AD7T5" and the :hilippine Drug ilfredo 7errano as the poseur-3u+er and $o3erto /a+ona as his

3ac-up. The team prepared 3u+-3ust mone+ for the operation, maring t)o !2" one hundred peso !:h: 100" 3ills )ith the

initials AA.

?pon arri6al on ol. 7antos 7treet, /rg+. em3o, aati it+, the team spotted anlangit standing in front of his

house. The informant approached anlangit and con6inced the latter that 7errano )anted to purchaseshabufrom

him. anlangit ased 7errano ho) much sha3u he )anted, to )hich 7errano replied that he )anted t)o hundred pesos !:h:

200" )orth ofshabu. anlangit )ent inside his house and later reappeared )ith a plastic sachet containing a )hite

cr+stalline su3stance. anlangit handed o6er the plastic sachet to 7errano )ho, in turn, ga6e anlangit the mared

mone+. Then 7errano ga6e the pre-arranged signal of lighting a cigarette to indicate to the rest of the team that the 3u+-3ust

operation had 3een consummated. Thus, the rest of the team approached anlangit and proceeded to arrest him )hile

informing him of constitutional rights and the reason for his arrest. The mared mone+ )as reco6ered from anlangits

pocet. The plastic sachet )as then mared )ith the initials T and sent to the :hilippine &ational :olice !:&:" crime

la3orator+ in amp rame, @ue4on it+ for anal+sis. The :&: crime la3orator+ identified the )hite cr+stalline su3stance as

eth+lamphetamine %+drochloride in hemistr+ $eport &o. D-1190-0'. anlangit )as also 3rought to the :&: crime

la3orator+ for a drug test, )hich +ielded a positi6e result for use of eth+lamphetamine %+drochloride.[]

anlangit denied that such 3u+-3ust operation )as conducted and claimed that the reco6ered shabu)as not from him. %e

claimed that he )as pointed out 3+ a certain %


3/10

2" n riminal ase &o. 0'-(',[(] finding accused rancisco anlangit +

Tres3alles #?BTC /


4/10

The Iss"es

The issues, as raised in the /rief for the Accused-Appellant dated 7eptem3er 29, 2008, are

1. The ourt a uo gra6el+ erred in con6icting the accused-appellant despite the prosecutions

failure to pro6e his 3uilt 3e+ond reasona3le dou3t.[9]

2. The ourt a uo gra6el+ erred in finding that the procedure for the custod+ and control of

prohi3ited drugs )as complied )ith.[10]

The R"#$%& o' !he Co"(!

The appeal is 3ereft of merit.

F$(s! Iss"e)

A"se*+ae##a%!s &"$#! -as (ove* eyo%* (easo%a#e *o"!

The first paragraph of 7ec. of $A 91 punishes the act of selling dangerous drugs. t pro6ides

7ection . Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of

Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and ssential Chemicals!The e%a#!y o' #$'e

$/($so%/e%! !o *ea!h a%* a '$%e (a%&$%& '(o/ F$ve h"%*(e* !ho"sa%* esos P00,000.002 !o Te%

/$##$o% esos P10,000,000.002 sha## e $/ose* "o% a%y e(so%, -ho, "%#ess a"!ho($3e* y #a-,

sha## se##, trade, administer, dispense, deli6er, gi6e a)a+ to another, distri3ute, dispatch in transit or

transport a%y *a%&e(o"s *("&, $%#"*$%& a%y a%* a## se$es o' o$"/ oy (e&a(*#ess o' !he

4"a%!$!y a%* "($!y $%vo#ve*, o( sha## a! as a (o5e( $% a%y o' s"h !(a%sa!$o%s.!


5/10

possession such uantit+ of an+ dangerous drug pro6ided for under 7ection 11 of this Act, in )hich case

the pro6isions stated therein shall appl+. !


6/10

ontrar+ to accused-appellants challenge to the 6alidit+ of the 3u+-3ust operation, the ourt categoricall+ stated in %uinicot

v! Peoplethat a prior sur6eillance or test 3u+ is not reuired for a 6alid 3u+-3ust operation, as long as the operati6es are

accompanied 3+ their informant, thus

Se!!#e* $s !he ("#e !ha! !he ase%e o' a ($o( s"(ve$##a%e o( !es! "y *oes %o! a''e! !he #e&a#$!y o'

!he "y+"s! oe(a!$o%.There is no tet3oo method of conducting 3u+-3ust operations. The ourt has

left to the discretion of police authorities the selection of effecti6e means to apprehend drug dealers. A

prior sur6eillance, much less a length+ one, is not necessar+, especiall+ )here the police operati6es are

accompanied 3+ their informant during the entrapment. lei3ilit+ is a trait of good police )or. >e ha6e

held that )hen time is of the essence, the police ma+ dispense )ith the need for prior sur6eillance. I% !he

$%s!a%! ase, hav$%& ee% ao/a%$e* y !he $%'o(/a%! !o !he e(so% -ho -as e**#$%& !he

*a%&e(o"s *("&s, !he o#$e/e% %ee* %o! have o%*"!e* a%y ($o( s"(ve$##a%e e'o(e !hey

"%*e(!oo5 !he "y+"s! oe(a!$o%.[1]!hen, in his presence, the person to 3e arrested has committed, is actuall+ committing, or is

attempting to commit an offenseE

!3" >hen an offense has in fact ;ust 3een committed, and he has personal no)ledge of facts

indicating that the person to 3e arrested has committed itE and

!c" >hen the person to 3e arrested is a prisoner )ho escaped from a penal esta3lishment or place

)here he is ser6ing final ;udgment or temporaril+ confined )hile his case is pending, or has

escaped )hile 3eing transferred from one confinement to another.

?nder 7ection !a", as a3o6e-uoted, a person ma+ 3e arrested )ithout a )arrant if he has committed, is

actuall+ committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. Appellant Doria )as caught in the act of
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/189806.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/189806.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/189806.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/189806.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/189806.htm#_ftn15


7/10

committing an offense. >hen an accused is apprehended in flagrante delictoas a result of a 3u+-3ust

operation, the police are not onl+ authori4ed 3ut dut+-3ound to arrest him e6en )ithout a )arrant.

The ourt reiterated such ruling inPeople v! Agulay[1]

Accused-appellant contends his arrest )as illegal, maing the sachets of sha3u allegedl+ reco6ered from

him inadmissi3le in e6idence. Accused-appellants claim is de6oid of merit for it is a )ell-esta3lished rule

that an arrest made after an entrapment operation does not reuire a )arrant inasmuch as it is considered a

6alid )arrantless arrest, in line )ith the pro6isions of $ule 11', 7ection !a" of the $e6ised $ules of

ourt, to )it

7ection . Arrest )ithout )arrantE )hen la)ful.A peace officer or a pri6ate person ma+, )ithout a

)arrant, arrest a person

!a" >hen, in his presence, the person to 3e arrested has committed, is actuall+ committing, or is

attempting to commit an offense.

A 3u+-3ust operation is a form of entrapment )hich in recent +ears has 3een accepted as a 6alid and

effecti6e mode of apprehending drug pushers. n a 3u+-3ust operation, the idea to commit a crime

originates from the offender, )ithout an+3od+ inducing or prodding him to commit the offense. f carried

out )ith due regard for constitutional and legal safeguards, a 3u+-3ust operation deser6es ;udicial

sanction.

Seo%* Iss"e)

The ha$% o' "s!o*y o' !he se$3e* *("& -as "%(o5e%

Accused-appellant contends that the arresting officers did not compl+ )ith the reuirements for the handling of sei4ed

dangerous drugs as pro6ided for under 7ec. 21!1" of $A 91

Se!$o% 1.Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Sei&ed, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant

Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and ssential Chemicals, 'nstruments/Paraphernalia

and/or $aboratory (uipment.The :D


8/10

the accused or the personFs from )hom such items )ere confiscated andFor sei4ed, or hisFher

representati6e or counsel, a representati6e from the media and the Department of *ustice !D5*",

and an+ elected pu3lic official )ho shall 3e reuired to sign the copies of the in6entor+ and 3e

gi6en a cop+ thereofE !


9/10


10/10

o''$e(s a%* "%!$# $! -as !es!e* $% !he #ao(a!o(y !o *e!e(/$%e $!s o/os$!$o% " !o !he !$/e

$! -as o''e(e* $% ev$*e%e.!

People vs. Manlangit

Documents

Transcript of People vs. Manlangit