G.R. No.
125299 January 22, 1999 the police learned that "Jun" is Florencio Doria y Bolado while
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, 
vs.
FLORENCIO DORIA y BOLADO and VIOLETA
GADDAO y CATAMA @ "NENETH," accused-appellants.
PUNO, J.:
FACTS:
On December 7, 1995, accused-appellants Florencio Doria y
Bolado and Violeta Gaddao y Catama @ "Neneth" were
charged with violation of Section 4, in relation to Section 21
of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.
In November 1995, members of the North Metropolitan
District, Philippine National Police (PNP) Narcotics
Command (Narcom), received information from two (2)
civilian informants (CI) that one "Jun" was engaged in illegal
drug activities in Mandaluyong City. The Narcom agents
decided to entrap and arrest "Jun" in a buy-bust operation.
On December 5, 1995, "Jun" appeared and the CI introduced
PO3 Manlangit as interested in buying one (1) kilo of
marijuana. P03 Manlangit handed "Jun" the marked bills
worth P1,600.00. "Jun" instructed P03 Manlangit to wait for
him at the corner of Shaw Boulevard and Jacinto Street while
he got the marijuana from his associate.  An hour later, "Jun"
5 Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.
appeared at the agreed place where P03 Manlangit, the CI and
the rest of the team were waiting. "Jun" took out from his bag
an object wrapped in plastic and gave it to P03 Manlangit. P03
Manlangit forthwith arrested "Jun" as SPO1 Badua rushed to
help in the arrest. They frisked "Jun" but did not find the
marked bills on him. Upon inquiry, "Jun" revealed that he left
the money at the house of his associate named "Neneth.  "Jun"
6
led the police team to "Neneth's" house nearby at Daang
Bakal.
The team found the door of "Neneth's" house open and a
woman inside. "Jun" identified the woman as his
associate.  SPO1 Badua asked "Neneth" about the P1,600.00
7
as PO3 Manlangit looked over "Neneth's" house. Standing by
the door, PO3 Manlangit noticed a carton box under the dining
table. He saw that one of the box's flaps was open and inside
the box was something wrapped in plastic. The plastic
wrapper and its contents appeared similar to the marijuana
earlier "sold" to him by "Jun." His suspicion aroused, PO3
Manlangit entered "Neneth's" house and took hold of the box.
He peeked inside the box and found that it contained ten (10)
bricks of what appeared to be dried marijuana leaves.
Simultaneous with the box's discovery, SPO1 Badua
recovered the marked bills from "Neneth."  The policemen
8
arrested "Neneth." They took "Neneth" and "Jun," together
with the box, its contents and the marked bills and turned them
over to the investigator at headquarters. It was only then that
"Neneth" is Violeta Gaddao y Catama
ISSUE:
(1) WHETHER the buy-bust operation in the apprehension of
accused-appellant Doria was valid.
(2) WHETHER the warrantless arrest of accused-appellant
Gaddao, the search of her person and house, and the
admissibility of the pieces of evidence obtained therefrom was
valid.
RULING:
1. YES
Accused-appellants were caught by the police in a buy-bust
operation. A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment
employed by peace officers as an effective way of
apprehending a criminal in the act of the commission of an
offense.
We hold that the warrantless arrest of accused-appellant Doria
is not unlawful. Warrantless arrests are allowed in three
instances as provided by Section 5 of Rule 113 of the 1985
Rules on Criminal Procedure, to wit:
— A peace officer or a private person may,
without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be
arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an
offense;
(b) When an offense has in fact just been
committed, and he has personal knowledge
of facts indicating that the person to be
arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a
prisoner who escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving
final judgment or temporarily confined
while his case is pending, or has escaped
while being transferred from one
confinement to another.
xxx xxx xxx 103
Under Section 5 (a), as above-quoted, a person may
be arrested without a warrant if he "has committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an
offense." Appellant Doria was caught in the act of
committing an offense. When an accused is
apprehended in flagrante delicto as a result of a buy-
 bust operation, the police are not only authorized but 1. Accused-appellant Florencio Doria y Bolado is sentenced to
duty-bound to arrest him even without a warrant. suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of
five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00).
2. NO
2. Accused-appellant Violeta Gaddao y Catama is acquitted.
Accused-appellant Gaddao was not caught red-handed during
the buy-bust operation to give ground for her arrest under
Section 5 (a) of Rule 113. She was not committing any crime.
Contrary to the finding of the trial court, there was no
occasion at all for appellant Gaddao to flee from the
policemen to justify her arrest in "hot pursuit."  In fact, she
114

was going about her daily chores when the policemen pounced
on her.

Neither could the arrest of appellant Gaddao be justified under

the second instance of Rule 113. "Personal knowledge" of
facts in arrests without warrant under Section 5 (b) of Rule
113 must be based upon "probable cause" which means an
"actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion."  The 115

grounds of suspicion are reasonable when, in the absence of

actual belief of the arresting officers, the suspicion that the
person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the
offense, is based an actual facts, i.e., supported by
circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the
probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested.  A 116

reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded on probable

cause, coupled with good faith on the part of the peace officers
making the arrest. 117

Accused-appellant Gaddao was arrested solely on the basis of

the alleged identification made by her co-accused. PO3
Manlangit, however, declared in his direct examination that
appellant Doria named his co-accused in response to his (PO3
Manlangit's) query as to where the marked money
was.  Appellant Doria did not point to appellant Gaddao as
118

his associate in the drug business, but as the person with

whom he left the marked bills. This identification does not
necessarily lead to the conclusion that appellant Gaddao
conspired with her co-accused in pushing drugs. Appellant
Doria may have left the money in her house,  with or without
119

her knowledge, with or without any conspiracy. Save for

accused-appellant Doria 's word, the Narcom agents had no
reasonable grounds to believe that she was engaged in drug
pushing. If there is no showing that the person who effected
the warrantless arrest had, in his own right, knowledge of facts
implicating the person arrested to the perpetration of a
criminal offense, the arrest is legally objectionable. 120

Since the warrantless arrest of accused-appellant Gaddao was

illegal, it follows that the search of her person and home and
the subsequent seizure of the marked bills and marijuana
cannot be deemed legal as an incident to her arrest.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision of the Regional Trial

Court, Branch 156, Pasig City acting as a Special Court in
Criminal Case No. 3307-D is reversed and modified as
follows: