Legalized by another legal act

Unless a search warrant is issued upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, no one can be subject to searches in their person, papers and effects. However, this case of Larry is an exception.

Upon report by a Barangay official that Larry was peddling illegal drugs the Municipal Police planned a buy-bust operation with PO1 Romy as poseur buyer. On the designated day at about 11 a.m. Romy and a confidential agent went to Larry’s house to buy P500 worth of shabu. Romy told them that he would deliver the shabu in front of a hardware store in half and hour. The buy-bust team then strategically stationed themselves near the place of the transaction.

In a little while Larry arrived in his tricycle and the confidential agent waved at him to stop. Then POI Romy and the agent approached Larry, they talked for a moment and the exchange took place. The agent handed the marked money to Larry who simultaneously handed the sachet of shabu. Immediately thereafter, the agent handed the shabu to PO1 Romy who then held Larry. The other members of the buy bust team then rushed to the crime scene and arrested Larry. After apprising Larry of his “Miranda Rights”, PO1 Sonny searched Larry’s body which yielded dried marijuana leaves wrapped in two cigarette packs and one foil.

When charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) with violation of Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (R.A. 9165) particularly Sections 5 and 11, Article II penalizing the sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation of dangerous drugs, and possession thereof respectively, Larry denied the accusation and insisted that he was framed up.

But the RTC nevertheless found him guilty of violating Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. 9165 and sentenced him accordingly. The court did not believe Larry’s defense of frame up as he failed to substantiate it. He did not present evidence that the prosecution witnesses had motive to falsely testify. Neither did he prove that the police officers did not perform their duties regularly. So the court said his frame up theory was a mere afterthought.

On appeal, he questioned the decision, arguing among others that the subsequent warrantless search and seizure was illegal because he was never caught in flagrante delicto in selling shabu. Hence the marijuana recovered from him was inadmissible as evidence. Was Larry correct?

No. Section 12 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court provides that “a person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense, without a search warrant”. In this case, the arresting officers were justified in arresting Larry as he had just committed a crime when he sold shabu to the confidential agent. A buy bust operation is a form of entrapment which has repeatedly been accepted as a valid means of arresting drug offenders. Considering the legality of Larry’s warrantless arrest, the subsequent warrantless search resulting in the recovery of the marijuana found in his body is also valid (People vs. Lopez, G.R. 181441, November 14, 2008).

*      *      *

E-mail: [email protected]