Professional Documents
Culture Documents
People v. Mantalaba
People v. Mantalaba
DECISION
PERALTA, J : p
For this Court's consideration is the Decision 1 dated July 31, 2008 of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00240-MIN, affirming the
Omnibus Judgment 2 dated September 14, 2005, of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 1, Butuan City in Criminal Case No. 10250 and Criminal Case No.
10251, finding appellant Allen Udtojan Mantalaba, guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (RA) 9165.
CEDScA
The CA affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC. It disposed of the case
as follows:
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 1,
Butuan City dated September 14, 2005 appealed from finding the
accused-appellant Allen Udtojan Mantalaba guilty beyond reasonable
doubt with the crime of Violation of Section 5 and Section 11, Article II
of Republic Act 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act, is AFFIRMED in toto, with costs against
accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED. 7
Q: Then armed with these marked moneys, what steps did you take
next?
A: After briefing of our team, we proceeded immediately to the
area.
Q: You mentioned of poseur-buyer, what would the poseur-buyer
do?
A: We made an arrangement with the poseur-buyer that during the
buying of shabu there should be a pre-arranged signal of the
poseur-buyer to the police officer. TSIEAD
Q: Where were you when this poseur-buyer gave the moneys to the
suspect?
A: After examining the sachet of shabu that it was really the plastic
containing white [crystalline] substance, we immediately
approached the suspect.
Q: Who was with a (sic ) suspect when you conducted the buy-bust
operation[?] Was he alone or did he had ( sic ) any companion at
that time?
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
A: He was alone.
Q: When you rushed up to the suspect what did you do?
A: We informed the suspect that we are the police officers and he
has this constitutional rights and we immediately handcuffed
him.
Q: How many sachets of shabu have you taken from the suspect
during the buy-bust operation?
The above only confirms that the buy-bust operation really occurred.
Once again, this Court stresses that a buy-bust operation is a legally
effective and proven procedure, sanctioned by law, for apprehending drug
peddlers and distributors. 11 It is often utilized by law enforcers for the
purpose of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the execution of their
nefarious activities. 12 In People v. Roa , 13 this Court had the opportunity to
expound on the nature and importance of a buy-bust operation, ruling that:
In the first place, coordination with the PDEA is not an
indispensable requirement before police authorities may carry out a
buy-bust operation. While it is true that Section 86 14 of Republic Act
No. 9165 requires the National Bureau of Investigation, PNP and the
Bureau of Customs to maintain "close coordination with the PDEA on
all drug-related matters," the provision does not, by so saying, make
PDEA's participation a condition sine qua non for every buy-bust
operation. After all, a buy-bust is just a form of an in flagrante arrest
sanctioned by Section 5, Rule 113 15 of the Rules of the Court, which
police authorities may rightfully resort to in apprehending violators of
Republic Act No. 9165 in support of the PDEA. 16 A buy-bust operation
is not invalidated by mere non-coordination with the PDEA.
Neither is the lack of prior surveillance fatal. The case of People
v. Lacbanes 17 is quite instructive:
In People v. Ganguso , 18 it has been held that prior
surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of an
entrapment operation, especially when the buy-bust team
members were accompanied to the scene by their informant. In
the instant case, the arresting officers were led to the scene by
the poseur-buyer. Granting that there was no surveillance
conducted before the buy-bust operation, this Court held in
People v. Tranca , 19 that there is no rigid or textbook method of
conducting buy-bust operations. Flexibility is a trait of good
police work. The police officers may decide that time is of the
essence and dispense with the need for prior surveillance. 20
The rule is that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of
witnesses are entitled to great respect because trial courts have the
advantage of observing the demeanor of the witnesses as they testify. This
is more true if such findings were affirmed by the appellate court. When the
trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings
are generally binding upon this Court. 21 cHSIAC
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And when the policemen brought you to the crime laboratory
and had your hands tested for ultra-violet fluorescent powder,
your hands tested positively for the presence of the said powder?
A: Yes, sir. 23
Q: And then after you had picked the marked moneys and after you
had the 2 pieces of sachets of shabu; one during the buy-bust
and the other one during the search, what did you do [with]
these 2 pieces of sachets of shabu and the marked moneys?
A: I recorded those items recovered, sir, during the search to the
Certificate of Inventory. 28
Footnotes
*Designated additional member, per Special Order No. 1042, dated July 6, 2011.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
1.Penned by Associate Justice Ruben C. Ayson, with Associate Justices Rodrigo F.
Lim, Jr. and Michael P. Elbinias, concurring.
2.Penned by Judge Eduardo S. Casals.
6.Id. at 77-78.
7.Id. at 122.
9.People v. Daria, Jr. , G.R. No. 186138, September 11, 2009, 599 SCRA 688, 701,
citing People v. Dumlao , 562 SCRA 762, 770 (2008).
10.TSN, March 2, 2005, pp. 7-9.
Nothing in this Act shall mean a diminution of the investigative powers of the
NBI and the PNP on all other crimes as provided for in their respective
organic laws: Provided, however, That when the investigation being
conducted by the NBI, PNP or any ad hoc anti-drug task force is found to be a
violation of any of the provisions of this Act, the PDEA shall be the lead
agency. The NBI, PNP or any of the task force shall immediately transfer the
same to the PDEA: Provided, further, That the NBI, PNP and the
Bureau of Customs shall maintain close coordination with the PDEA
on all drug related matters. (Emphasis supplied)
15.Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private
person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(c) . . . .
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or
jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule 112.
16.Even the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No. 9165
does not make PDEA's participation a mandatory requirement before the
other law enforcement agencies may conduct buy-bust operations. Section
86 (a) of the said IRR provides:
18.G.R. No. 115430, November 23, 1995, 250 SCRA 268, 278-279.
19.G.R. No. 110357, August 17, 1994, 235 SCRA 455, 463.
21.People v. Lazaro, Jr. , G.R. No. 186418, October 16, 2009, 604 SCRA 250, 268-
269, citing People v. Naquita , 560 SCRA 430, 444, (2008); People v.
Concepcion, 556 SCRA 421, 440 (2008); People v. Santiago , 539 SCRA 198,
217 (2007).
22.People v. Encila , G.R. No. 182419, February 10, 2009, 578 SCRA 341, 361,
citing People v. Lagata n , 452 Phil. 846, 853 (2003).
23.TSN, June 3, 2005, pp. 11-12. (Emphasis supplied.)
24.People v. Lazaro, Jr., supra note 21, at 269, citing People v. Naquita, supra note
21; People v. Concepcion, supra note 21; People v. Santiago, supra note 21.
25.People v. Pringas , G.R. No. 175928, August 31, 2007, 531 SCRA 828, 842, citing
People v. Sta. Maria , 516 SCRA 621 (2007), citing Section 21.a. of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165.
27.Id. at 843.
Upon receipt of the application of the youthful offender for suspension of his
sentence, the court may require the Department of Social Welfare and
Development to prepare and submit to the court a social case study report
over the offender and his family.
The youthful offender shall be subject to visitation and supervision by a
representative of the Department of Social Welfare and Development or any
duly licensed agency or such other officer as the Court may designate
subject to such conditions as it may prescribe.
The benefits of this article shall not apply to a youthful offender
who has once enjoyed suspension of sentence under its provisions
or to one who is convicted for an offense punishable by death or life
imprisonment or to one who is convicted of an offense by the
Military Tribunals. (As amended by P.D. Nos. 1179 and 1210) (Emphasis
theirs).
32.Sec. 32. Automatic Suspension of Sentence and Disposition Orders. — The
sentence shall be suspended without need of application by the juvenile in
conflict with the law. The court shall set the case for disposition conference
within fifteen (15) days from the promulgation of sentence which shall be
attended by the social worker of the Family Court, the juvenile, and his
parents or guardian ad litem. It shall proceed to issue any or a combination of
the following disposition measures best suited to the rehabilitation and
welfare of the juvenile:
33.G.R. No. 169641, September 10, 2009, 599 SCRA 20, 50.
A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall
likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention
program, unless he/she has acted with discernment, in which case,
such child shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in
accordance with this Act. (Emphasis supplied.)
The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include
exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with
existing laws.