Case Digest: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROBERTO T. GARCIA

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROBERTO T. GARCIA

             Roberto T. Garcia and Melissa B. Cruz were caught in a buy-bust operation of possessing dangerous drug specifically Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu). They were subsequently charged before the Regional Trial Court for violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. The RTC rendered judgment finding Garcia and Cruz guilty of the offense charged.

         On appeal, Garcia faulted the trial court in not finding that he was illegally arrested. He insisted that none of the circumstances justifying a warrantless arrest under Section 5 of Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure was present. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court‘s decision.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the accused was illegally arrested because a warrant of arrest was not presented by the law enforcers

HELD:

Here, the Supreme Court said that the accused was wrong in saying that a warrant of arrest should have been presented before the law enforcers arrested him.

The Court said “Garcia was caught in flagrante delicto – in the act of selling a sachet containing substances which turned out to be positive for shabu to poseur-buyer PO2 Barrameda. And as soon as he was arrested, he was frisked by the arresting officers in the course of which a sachet also containing substances which too turned out to be positive for shabu was found in his pocket.”

Section 5(a) of Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that a peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. Having committed the crime of selling shabu in the presence of the buy-bust operation team, and having been found to be in possession of another sachet of shabu immediately thereafter, Garcia‘s arrest without warrant is, unquestionably, justified.

For a successful prosecution of a charge for illegal sale of a prohibited drug, the following elements must concur: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the object evidence. Such requirements are present in this case.