Incident to lawful Arrest

[G.R. No. 240428. September 11, 2019.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-

appellee, vs. GEOVANNY AGUJAR BAYA, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution

dated September 11, 2019, which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 240428 — (People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee v.
Geovanny Agujar Baya, accused-appellant). — This is an appeal 1 filed by
Geovanny Agujar Baya (accused-appellant) from the January 31, 2018
Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA), Cebu City, in CA-G.R. CEB-CR HC
No. 02172, which affirmed the August 26, 2015 Joint Decision 3 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 13, in Criminal Case No.
CBU-94282 finding accused-appellant guilty of violation of Section 5, Article II
of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended.
The Facts
The instant case stemmed from two (2) separate Informations that were
filed with the RTC of Cebu City against the accused-appellant, charging him
with violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the accusatory
portions of which provide:
Criminal Case No. CBU-94282
That on the 16th day of November, 2011 at around 1:45
o'clock (sic) in the afternoon, at Barangay Tungkil, Minglanilla, Cebu,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and distribute to a PNP
agent acting as poseur buyer four hundred (400) sealed glass
ampoules of nubain and three hundred (300) sealed glass ampoules of
nubain, for which a consideration consisting of two (2) five hundred
(P500.00) peso bills with serial numbers VY789083 and WZ487706
and wads of paper as buy bust money, which when
subjected for laboratory examination gave positive result for the
presence of nalbuphine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.  DETACa
 CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
Criminal Case No. CBU-94283
That on the 16th day of November 2011 at around 1:45
o'clock (sic) in the afternoon, at Barangay Tungkil, Minglanilla, Cebu,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused without authority of law, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and
control three hundred (300) sealed glass ampoules of nubain, which
when subjected for laboratory examination gave positive result for the
presence of nalbuphine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. 5 (Emphasis
in the original)
When arraigned on December 15, 2011, assisted by his counsel, the
accused-appellant pleaded "not guilty" to the crimes charged. 6
The version of the parties as summarized by the RTC are as follows:
The version of the Prosecution
The prosecution presented PO3 Cesar Pandong (Pandong),
PO2 Albert Luardo (Luardo) and Engr. Ryan Ace Sala, the Forensic
Chemist, as its witnesses. However, the testimony of Engr. Sala was
dispensed with as the parties have stipulated on the following facts: (i)
the expertise of Engr. Ryan Ace Sala in the field of forensic chemistry;
(ii) that he conducted the qualitative examination of the object
evidence; (iii) the result of his examination was contained in Chemistry
Report No. D-1361-2011 [Exhibit F] and Chemistry Report No. D-1361-
2011-A [Exhibit F-3]; (iv) that he has no personal knowledge as to the
circumstances surrounding the recovery of the object evidence as well
as the arrest of the accused in these cases.
On the other hand, PO3 Pandong testified that at around 10:00
o'clock (sic) in the morning of 16 November 2011, while at their office
at the Regional Intelligence Division, PRO 7, Cebu City, an informant
came and snitched an alleged illegal drugs activities of a certain
Geovanny, who was allegedly selling Nubain. After the informant had
arranged a transaction to buy nubain from Geovanny, a team was
composed to conduct a buy bust operation Chief Inspector George
Ylanan was the head of the team, while PO3 Pandong, PO2 Luardo,
PO3 Veloso and PO3 Ybañez are the members. Pandong was
designated as the poseur buyer and two pieces of 500.00 peso bills
with Serial Numbers BY789083 and WZ48706, with markings
"CSP" [Exhibit G], will be used as marked money. The pre-arranged
signal was for Pandong to put his left hand in the back pocket of his
pants. After the briefing and before the jump off, PO3 Luardo made
coordination with the PDEA. Pandong likewise called the PDEA to
make coordination.  aDSIHc
 The team conducted a reconnaissance at Deca Homes
Subdivision in Tungkil, Minglanilla, Cebu where the informant pointed
to the police officers the house of Geovanny. The team went out of the
subdivision and dropped Pandong and the informant. On their way to
the residence of Geovanny, Pandong saw an unmarked vehicle, which
was parked in a strategic location. Inside the gate, but outside the
house, Pandong saw a man waving his hand to them. The informant
told Pandong that the man was Geovanny, who then allowed them to
enter the gate of his premises. After a brief introduction, Geovanny
asked Pandong how much worth of nubain is he buying.
Following a momentary haggling, a deal of [P]100.00 per ampoule was
agreed. Geovanny went inside his house and got a big carton
and a plastic bag and put them beside Pandong. Geovanny picked one
small box from the big carton, took an ampoule therefrom and gave the
same to Pandong. When the latter returned the ampoule after
examining it, Geovanny put it back to the box and returned the same to
the carton Geovanny told Pandong to take the box and the plastic bag
and he (Geovanny) placed them by Pandong's side. In return,
Pandong handed to Geovanny, who received them by his right hand,
two pieces of [P]500.00 bills marked money on top of wad papers.
Thereafter, Pandong beckoned the pre-arranged signal. Before
Geovanny could count the money, Pandong introduced himself
as a police officer. He arrested Geovanny and informed the latter of his
violation.
The back-up team arrived who likewise introduced themselves
as police officers PO2 Luardo was able to recover from the right hand
of Geovanny the buy-bust money. The police officers then opened the
box and the plastic bag that contained 40 boxes of [Nalbin] and 60
boxes of Ashtec.
Incidental to the arrest of Geovanny, the police officers also
recovered from the possession of Geovanny 60 more packs that
contain 10 ampoules of Ashtec or Nalbuphine/Nubain, which were
placed at the left side of his left foot. Geovanny was arrested and was
informed of the nature and cause of his arrest and was also apprised
of his constitutional rights in a language known to him.
The police officers gathered all the pieces of evidence and
marked them at the scene of the crime. Pandong marked the Nalbin
with "GAB-1-BB to GAB-40-BB," while the Ashtec were marked as
"GAB-41-BB to GAB-100-BB." The other nubain recovered from the
possession of Geovanny were marked as "GAB-1 to GAB-30." Inside
the house of Geovanny, Pandong prepared an inventory
receipt [Exhibit H] and pictures [Exhibit I] were taken in the presence of
the representatives from the media (Alan Domingo) and the
Department of Justice (Riva Pasumala) and elected barangay officials.
From [the] recovery to the police station up to the crime laboratory,
Pandong was in possession of the pieces of evidence seized. At their
office, the incident was entered in the police blotter [Exhibit M] and
Pandong prepared the letter-request for laboratory
examination [Exhibit E].
After the laboratory examination, the pieces of evidence seized
turned out positive for the presence of Nalbuphine Hydrochloride, per
Chemistry Report No. D-1361-2011 [Exhibit F].
PO2 Luardo corroborated the testimony of PO3 Pandong that in
connection with the information that their office received on 16
November 2011 at around 10:00 o'clock (sic) in the morning regarding
the illegal drugs activities of Geovanny, a buy bust operation was
conducted. Like Pandong, Luardo also called the PDEA to coordinate
the operation. He also affirmed the conduct of reconnaissance at Deca
Homes Subdivision where the house of Geovanny was pointed to by
the informant and the dropping off of the latter and Pandong outside of
the subdivision. Luardo further testified that the team went ahead of
Pandong and the informant, and positioned their vehicle in a strategic
location, around seven to ten meters away from the house of
Geovanny.  ETHIDa

At their vehicle, the team saw Geovanny waved his hands to

Pandong and the informant. Geovanny let the duo enter the gate of his
house. Luardo saw Geovanny went inside his house. When Geovanny
went back, he was already carrying a box and a plastic bag. Luardo
also observed that a conversation transpired between the three.
Geovanny took out one white carton from the box, took an ampoule
therefrom and gave the same to Pandong, who in turn examined the
same. When Pandong returned the ampoule to Geovanny, the latter
put the same back to the white carton and returned the white canon to
the big box. Luardo saw the delivery of the buy bust money and its
receipt by Geovanny. Thereafter, Pandong made the pre-arranged
signal. Immediately, the team alighted from their unmarked vehicle and
proceeded to where the three were and introduced themselves as
police officers. Luardo frisked Geovanny and recovered from him the
buy bust money, including the wad papers.
Luardo confirmed the testimony of Pandong regarding the
marking of the seized items, the preparation of the inventory and the
taking of the pictures at the residence of Geovanny. Luardo also
affirmed the testimony of Pandong that the latter was in possession of
the pieces of evidence seized from its confiscation up to their delivery
to the crime laboratory. From Chemistry Report No. D-1361-
2011 [Exhibit F] and Chemistry Report No. D-1361-2011-A [Exhibit F-
3], Luardo learned that the items seized from Geovanny turned out
positive for the presence of Nalbupine Hydrochloride.
The version of the accused
 For his defense, Geovanny denied the accusations against him.
He recounted that on 16 November 2011, he was at Robinson's
Talisay buying some grocery items. At the side entrance of the
supermarket, two people approached him and poked their guns at
him for unknown reason. But, nobody witnessed when these strangers
picked him up. The two pulled him and boarded him in a vehicle where
he was handcuffed. He was then brought to their house. Since the gate
of their house was locked, his abductors took the key that was hanging
on his pocket. In the course of his testimony, Geovanny identified
Pandong as one of the persons who allegedly kidnapped him.
During cross-examination, Geovanny testified that he did not file
and has no plan of filing any case against his alleged kidnappers.
Jocelyn Baya (Jocelyn), the wife of Geovanny, testified in favor
of the latter. She declared that her husband was not present when the
alleged buy bust operation was conducted. She testified that at around
12:00 noon of 16 November 2011, she ordered Geovanny to buy
milk for their child at the grocery in Robinson's Talisay, which is around
10 kilometers away from their house. After an hour, Jocelyn wondered
that her husband has not yet returned. At around 1:30 or 1:40
o'clock (sic) in the afternoon, Jocelyn was surprised when her husband
arrived in handcuff, together with persons in civilian clothes. These
persons got the key of the gate from Geovanny, opened the gate and
entered. Jocelyn was further astounded when these people identified
as police officers and informed her that her husband was selling illegal
drugs.
The police officers let Geovanny sit while they
conducted a search in the entire house for about 20 minutes, but found
nothing. The police officers then took pictures of her husband, together
with the nubain, which they carried when they arrived. Jocelyn denied
that these nubain were found in their house. 7 (Citations omitted;
emphasis in the original)
The RTC Ruling
In a Joint Decision 8 dated August 26, 2015, the RTC rejected accused-
appellant's defense of denial and ruled that the prosecution was able to fully
discharge its burden to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt for violation
of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The trial court, however, found
insufficient evidence to establish that accused-appellant was in possession of
the other 60 packs containing 10 ampoules each
of Ashtec or Nalbuphine/Nubain. It opined that the possession of the
additional 60 packs of Ashtec or Nalbuphine/Nubain was a necessary
ingredient in the transaction for the sale. Resultantly, accused-appellant was
exonerated from violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.  cSEDTC

The RTC thus decreed:

 WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, judgment is
hereby rendered as follows:
1. In Crim. Case No. CBU-94283, for failure of the prosecution
to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, Geovanny Agujar Baya is
hereby ACQUITTED from criminal liability for Violation of Section 11,
Article II, R.A. 9165; and
2. In Crim. Case No. CBU-94282, the court finds Geovanny
Agujar Baya GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section
5, Article II, R.A. 9165, and hereby imposes upon him the penalty of
life imprisonment, without eligibility for parole, and a fine of Five
hundred thousand pesos ([P]500,000.00).
The illegal drugs covered by Chemistry Report No. D-1361-
2011 [Exhibit F] and Chemistry Report No. D-1361-2011 [Exhibit F-
1] are hereby FORFEITED and CONFISCATED in favor of the
government to be DESTRUCTED pursuant to R.A. 9165.
SO ORDERED. 9 (Emphasis in the original)
Accused-appellant elevated the case to the CA via a Notice of Appeal
that was filed on October 2, 2015. 10
The CA Ruling
On January 31, 2018, the CA affirmed accused-appellant's
conviction for violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. 11
The CA ruled that the prosecution was able to establish the
concurrence of all the elements for the offense of illegal sale
of dangerous drugs. The pieces of evidence, coupled with the testimonies of
the prosecution witnesses that were submitted in court, proved that the illegal
sale of dangerous drugs took place. The exchange of the prohibited
drugs for the marked money between the poseur-buyer and the accused-
appellant, as the seller, consummated the transaction. 12
The appellate court further confirmed the compliance with Section 21 of
R.A. No. 9165, pertaining to the preservation of the integrity of the seized
items claimed to be sold by the accused-appellant to Police Officer 3 Pandong
(PO3 Pandong). The confiscated illicit drugs were marked and inventoried at
the crime scene by PO3 Pandong. He photographed the prohibited drugs in
the presence of the media, Department of Justice representative and elective
officials, and later presented the same in court for identification. The CA
declared that the prosecution was able to establish the unbroken link from the
time of seizure of the dangerous drugs up to their presentation in court. 13
Insisting on his innocence, accused-appellant filed the instant Appeal. 14
The parties were required to simultaneously file their respective
supplemental briefs. 15 Accused-appellant, through the Public Attorney's
Office, manifested that he is adopting the Brief for Accused-appellant 16 he
submitted before the CA as it had adequately presented and discussed all the
issues proving his innocence. 17 The People, represented by the Office of the
Solicitor General, also filed a Manifestation 18 (In Lieu of Supplemental Brief)
stating that the Brief for the Appellee 19 that was filed before the CA has
substantially and exhaustively refuted accused-appellant's arguments in his
appeal brief. 
SDAaTC

The Issues
The accused-appellant assigned the following errors in the brief filed
before the CA, viz.:
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE FACT THAT HIS GUILT WAS
NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT[.]
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE FACT THAT HIS
WARRANTLESS ARREST WAS ILLEGAL[.]
III
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE EVIDENCE
USED AGAINST HIM WERE OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS[.] 20
The Ruling of the Court
This Court has made an exhaustive review of the records of the case
and has found no reason to overturn the ruling of the trial court as affirmed by
the CA.
Nalbuphine Hydrochloride is now
included in the list of dangerous
drugs.
On December 16, 2010, the Dangerous Drugs Board approved and
adopted Board Regulation No. 1, s. 2010 (Regulation) which
included Nalbuphine Hydrochloride, and the salts, isomers, and complexes
of Nalbuphine and their preparations, in the list of dangerous drugs. 21 The
Regulation, further, provides that Nalbuphine
Hydrochloride shall be prescribed only by a medical practitioner with a valid S-
2 license through a special prescription form issued by and obtainable from
the Department of Health, which shall cover a maximum of forty (40) mg.
of Nalbuphine Hydrochloride in every prescription. 22
Corpus delicti of the crime of illegal
sale of dangerous drugs.
The accused in a criminal case enjoys the presumption of innocence
until proven guilty. It is well-established in jurisprudence that the prosecution
bears the burden to overcome such presumption. 23  acEHCD

In the successful prosecution of the crime of illegal sale

of dangerous drugs, under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the
prosecution must prove the: (a) identity of the buyer and the seller, the object,
and the consideration; and (b) delivery of the thing sold and the
payment. 24 The prosecution must not only prove the illegal sale of
the dangerous drugs, it must also present the corpus delicti in court as
evidence. 25
The concept of corpus delicti and its application to the crime of illegal
sale of dangerous drugs is further explained in People of the Philippines v.
Dina Calates y dela Cruz: 26
Corpus delicti has been defined as the body or substance of the crime
and, in its primary sense, refers to the fact that a crime was actually
committed. As applied to a particular offense, it means the actual
commission by someone of the particular crime charged. The corpus
delicti is a compound fact made up of two things, namely: the
existence of a certain act or result forming the basis of the criminal
charge, and the existence of a criminal agency as the cause of this
act or result. The dangerous drug itself is the very corpus delicti of the
violation of the law prohibiting the illegal sale or possession
of dangerous drug. 27
Chain of custody.
In connection thereto, it is paramount that the identity of the prohibited
drugs be established beyond reasonable doubt, considering that the illicit drug
forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime of illegal sale
of dangerous drugs. To show an unbroken chain of custody over
the dangerous drugs, "the prosecution must be able to account for each link of
the chain from the moment of seizure up to presentation in court as evidence
of the corpus delicti." 28
The provision of Section 21 (1) 29 of R.A. No. 9165, as supplemented by
Section 21 (a) 30 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No.
9165, provides for the parameters for an unbroken chain of custody, as
applied in the instant case, given that the crime was committed on November
16, 2011. In People of the Philippines v. Seneres, Jr., 31 this Court
pronounced:
 Under the original provision of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165,
after seizure and confiscation of the drugs, the apprehending team is
required to immediately conduct a physically inventory and photograph
the same in the presence of (1) the accused or the person/s from
whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel; (2) a representative from the media and (3)
from the DOJ; and (4) any elected public official who shall be required
to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. It is
assumed that the presence of these persons will guarantee "against
planting of evidence and frame up," i.e., they are "necessary to
insulate the apprehension and incrimination proceedings from any taint
of illegitimacy or irregularity." Now, the amendatory law mandates that
the conduct of physical inventory and photograph of the seized items
must be in the presence of (1) the accused or the person/s from whom
such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel; (2) an elected public official; and
(3) a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media
who shall sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
In the present case, the old provisions of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165
and its IRR shall apply since the alleged crime was committed before
the amendment. 32 (Citation omitted) SDHTEC

In the instant case, the prosecution was able to duly establish the
following elements of the crime charged:
(1) the identity of the buyer — PO3 Pandong was the designated
poseur-buyer; 33 identity of the seller — accused-appellant Geovanny Agujar
Baya; 34 the object of the sale — seven hundred (700) sealed glass
ampoules 35 of Nubain which positively tested for the presence of Nalbuphine
Hydrochloride, an illegal drug; 36 and the consideration — the two (2) marked
five hundred peso bills (P500.00) with serial numbers VY789083 and
WZ487706 and wads of paper; 37 and
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. In the
testimony 38 of PO3 Pandong, he clearly narrated the circumstances of the
transaction constituting the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, viz.:
PROSECUTOR BALANSAG
xxx xxx xxx
Q: When you were inside the gate sir, what happened there?
A: The informant introduced me to the accused and the accused was
introduced to me by the informant.
Q: What happened next?
A: After introducing ourselves Geovanny Baya asked me as to how
much would I want to buy.
Q: So what was your response to that?
A: So I asked him how much are you selling for one [ampoule]?
Q: So, what is the response of the accused?
A: He said P120.00 per [ampoule] sir.
Q: What happened next?
A: I told him if he could give me a discount for P100.00 because I will
buy 700 [ampoules].
PROSECUTOR BALANSAG
Q: What did he do next when you said that?
A: He nodded and said, let's deal.
Q: After that what happened next?
A: He went back inside his house.
Q: After he went back to his house, what happened next?
A: After [a] few minutes, he then came back, he brought one (1) [carton]
and one plastic bag.
Q: Were you able to know what is inside the [carton] and plastic bag?
A: When he arrived in front of me, he put the [carton] and the plastic bag
beside him and he got one (1) small box from the big [carton] and
opened it and pick[ed] one (1) [ampoule] and showed it to me and
when I got the [ampoule], as I saw it, I returned it to him.
Q: So after that what happened next?  AScHCD

A: So he got back the one (1) [ampoule] and put it in a small white box
and put it [back in] the [carton].
Q: After that what happened next?
A: After putting back the one [ampoule] in a small white [carton] to the
big [carton], he said to me to take all these. He is pointing to the
big [carton] and one plastic bag.
Q: What was your response that you take all these [cartons] and white
plastic bag?
A: I answered to him, these are all I got?
Q: What happened next?
WITNESS
A: After I said that these are all I got, he picked up the big [carton] and
put it all on my side.
PROSECUTOR BALANSAG
Q: What happened next?
 A: After he put the [carton] on my side, I gave him the buy bust money
together with wad papers with two (2) pieces of P500 bill on top of
it.
Q: After you gave the money with two (2) pieces of P500 peso bills on
top of the wad papers, what happened next?
A: He received it with his right hand and when he received it, I
immediately made a pre-arrange[d] signal by putting my left hand
on my left back pocket.
Q: What happened next when you put your left hand [in] your left back
pocket?
A: Before he was able to count the money, immediately I introduced
myself as [a] police officer.
Q: What did you do next after you introduced yourself as a police officer?
A: I arrested him and informed him of his violation. 39
In a buy-bust operation, People v. Cutara 40 provides for the following
links to be necessary in order to establish the chain of custody: (1) the seizure
and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by
the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the illegal drug seized to the
investigating officer; (3) the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal
drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turnover
and submission of the illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court. 41
The records of the case showed that the prosecution successfully
established the links in the chain of custody over the seized 700 sealed glass
ampoules of Nubain which positively tested to contain Nalbuphine
Hydrochloride, from the time PO3 Pandong, the poseur-buyer, seized the illicit
drugs, immediately inventoried 42 and photographed 43 the same in the
presence of the enumerated statutory witnesses who signed the copies of the
inventory; 44 to the time they were brought to the police station, 45 then to the
crime laboratory for testing, 46 until the time the same were offered in evidence
before the court. In sum, the totality of the prosecution's evidence undeniably
shows that the integrity of the seized items had been duly preserved and the
chain of custody had been accounted for. Thus, the accused-appellant's
guilt for illegally selling Nalbuphine Hydrochloride had been sufficiently proven
beyond reasonable doubt.  AcICHD

Evidently, accused-appellant was caught in flagrante delicto for the

unauthorized selling to a police officer-poseur buyer of a total of 700 sealed
glass ampoules of Nubain in exchange for two (2) P500.00 bills on top
of a wad of paper during a buy bust operation conducted on November 16,
2011. When tested, the contents of the ampoules gave positive results for the
presence Nalbuphine Hydrochloride. Clearly, there was concurrence of all the
elements of the offense of sale of dangerous drugs.
The positive testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses prevail over
accused-appellant's defenses of denial
and frame-up.
Accused-appellant raised denial and frame-up as his defenses.
In People v. Rivera, 47 the Court pronounced:
Denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been viewed by the court with
disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted and is a common and
standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of
the Dangerous Drugs Act. The defense of frame-up or denial in drug
cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the
presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular
performance of their official duties. Bare denials of appellant cannot
prevail over the positive testimonies of the three police officers.
Moreover, there is no evidence of any improper motive on the part of
the PDEA officers who conducted the buy-bust operation to falsely
testify against appellant. 48 (Citations omitted)
All told, a defense of denial or frame-up that is unsubstantiated by clear
and convincing evidence becomes negative and self-serving, deserving no
weight in law. It cannot be given greater evidentiary value over convincing,
straightforward, and probable testimony on affirmative matters. 49
In this case, no evidence that the police officers were inspired by any
improper or ill motive to falsely testify against the accused-appellant of the
crime was presented. It has been jurisprudentially established that "when the
police officers involved in the buy-bust operation have no ill motive to testify
against the accused, the courts shall uphold the presumption that they have
performed their duties regularly." 50
Search warrant and warrant of
arrest not needed.
Also, accused-appellant claims that his warrantless arrest was illegal.
Consequently, the evidence used against him was obtained in violation of his
constitutional rights.
The claim fails to persuade.
In People v. Marcelino, 51 the Supreme Court ruled that the accused
was arrested after he sold drugs during a buy-bust operation, a circumstance
where a warrantless arrest is justified under Rule 113, Section 5 (a) of the
Rules of Court. The same ruling applies to the instant case. A buy-bust
operation is a judicially sanctioned method of apprehending those involved in
illegal drug activities provided it is carried out with due regard for constitutional
and legal safeguards. It is a valid form of entrapment, as the idea to
commit a crime comes not from the police officers but from the accused
himself. The accused is caught in the act and must be apprehended on the
spot. From the very nature of a buy-bust operation, the absence of a warrant
does not make the arrest illegal.  TAIaHE

This being the case, the illegal drug seized during a legitimate buy-bust
operation was not the "fruit of the poisonous tree." 52 The confiscation made by
the police operatives falls under a search incidental to a lawful arrest under
Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, which states
that a person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or an
ything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an
offense without a search warrant.
The buy-bust operation in this case was established as legitimate, thus
the search and seizure conducted incidental thereto are corollarily valid.
The penalty for sale illegal drugs
under R.A. No. 9165.
The penalty for sale of illegal drugs under Section 5, Article II, R.A. No.
9165 is the following:
SEC. 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery,
Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled
Precursors and Essential Chemicals. — The penalty of life
imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand
pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00)
shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law,
shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another,
distribute[,] dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug,
including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity
and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
But with the enactment of R.A. No. 9346, 53 "only life imprisonment and
fine shall be imposed upon accused-appellant, without eligibility for parole
pursuant to Section 2 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law." 54
The penalty imposed by the RTC is as follows:
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, judgment is
hereby rendered as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
2. In Crim. Case No. CBU-94282, the court finds Geovanny
Agujar Baya GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section
5, Article II, R.A. 9165, and hereby imposes upon him the penalty of
 life imprisonment, without eligibility for parole, and a fine of Five
hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00). 55
Considering that the penalty imposed by the RTC, as affirmed by the
CA, is within the range, there is no reason to modify the same.  cDHAES

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The January 31, 2018

Decision of the Court of Appeals, Cebu City in CA-G.R. CEB-CR HC No.
02172, which affirmed the August 26, 2015 Joint Decision of the Regional
Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 13, in Criminal Case No. CBU-94282, finding
accused-appellant Geovanny Agujar Baya guilty of violation of Section 5,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED." (PERALTA, J., on official business; HERNANDO, J.,
on official business)

Search warrant and warrant of arrest not needed.

Also, accused-appellant claims that his warrantless arrest was illegal. Consequently,
the evidence used against him was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights.
The claim fails to persuade.
In People v. Marcelino, the Supreme Court ruled that the accused
was arrested after he sold drugs during a buy-bust operation, a circumstance
where a warrantless arrest is justified under Rule 113, Section 5 (a) of the Rules of Court.
The same ruling applies to the instant case. A buy-bust operation is a judicially sanctioned
method of apprehending those involved in illegal drug activities provided it is carried out with
due regard for constitutional and legal safeguards. It is a valid form of entrapment, as the
idea to commit a crime comes not from the police officers but from the accused himself. The
accused is caught in the act and must be apprehended on the spot. From the very nature
of a buy-bust operation, the absence of a warrant does not make the arrest illegal.
This being the case, the illegal drug seized during a legitimate buy-bust operation
was not the "fruit of the poisonous tree." 
The confiscation made by the police operatives falls under a search incidental
to a lawful arrest under Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court,which,states
that a person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything
which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense
without a search warrant.
The buy-bust operation in this case was established as legitimate, thus the search
and seizure conducted incidental thereto are corollarily valid.

The penalty for sale illegal drugs under R.A. No. 9165.
 The penalty for sale of illegal drugs under Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 is the
following:

SEC. 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and

Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals.
— The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand
pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any
person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give
away to another, distribute[,] dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including
any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall
act as a broker in any of such transactions.

But with the enactment of R.A. No. 9346, 53 "only life imprisonment and fine shall be
imposed upon accused-appellant, without eligibility for parole pursuant to Section 2 of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law."
The penalty imposed by the RTC is as follows:

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

2. In Crim. Case No. CBU-94282, the court finds Geovanny Agujar Baya GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 5, Article II, R.A. 9165, and hereby imposes
upon him the penalty of life imprisonment, without eligibility for parole, and a fine of Five
hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00).

Considering that the penalty imposed by the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, is within
the range, there is no reason to modify the same.