People vs. Rodrigueza

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. DON RODRIGUEZA

G.R. No. 95902 February 4, 1992

REGALADO, J.:

The purpose of buy-bust operation is to catch a malefactor in flagrante delicto.

A confidential informant told the police officers that there is an on-going illegal traffic of prohibited drugs therein Major Zeidem formed a team to conduct buy-bust operation.  CIC Taduran acted as poseur buyer and was able to buy 100grams of marijuana from appellant.  The CIC Taduran reported to Major Zeidem that he was able to purchase marijuana. Based on the information they have formed a team to apprehend appellant. The Officers were not, however, armed with a warrant of arrest when they apprehended the three accused.

Thereafter, agents of the Narcotics Command (NARCOM) conducted a raid in the house of Jovencio Rodrigueza, father of appellant.  During the raid, they were able to confiscate dried marijuana leaves and a plastic syringe, among others. The search, however, was not authorized by any search warrant.

ISSUE: Was the act of the Police Officers valid?

RULING: NO.

A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment employed by peace officers to trap and catch a malefactor in flagrante delicto.  Applied to the case at bar, the term in flagrante delicto requires that the suspected drug dealer must be caught redhanded in the act of selling marijuana or any prohibited drug to a person acting or posing as a buyer.

In the instant case, however, the procedure adopted by the NARCOM agents failed to meet this qualification. Based on the very evidence of the prosecution, after the alleged consummation of the sale of dried marijuana leaves, CIC Taduran immediately released appellant Rodrigueza instead of arresting and taking him into his custody. This act of CIC Taduran, assuming arguendo that the supposed sale of marijuana did take place, is decidedly contrary to the natural course of things and inconsistent with the aforestated purpose of a buy-bust operation. It is rather absurd on his part to let appellant escape without having been subjected to the sanctions imposed by law.

As provided in the present Constitution, a search, to be valid, must generally be authorized by a search warrant duly issued by the proper government authority.  True, in some instances, the Court has allowed government authorities to conduct searches and seizures even without a search warrant. Thus, when the owner of the premises waives his right against such incursion;  when the search is incidental to a lawful arrest; when it is made on vessels and aircraft for violation of customs laws; when it is made on automobiles for the purpose of preventing violations of smuggling or immigration laws; when it involves prohibited articles in plain view; or in cases of inspection of buildings and other premises for the enforcement of fire, sanitary and building regulations, a search may be validly made even without a search warrant.

In the case at bar, however, the raid conducted by the NARCOM agents in the house of Jovencio Rodrigueza was not authorized by any search warrant. It does not appear, either, that the situation falls under any of the aforementioned cases. Hence, appellant's right against unreasonable search and seizure was clearly violated.