- W/N the appointment of a new judge, who has not personally heard any of the witnesses presented and, therefore, had no opportunity to observe their demeanor vis-a-vis the truthfulness of their versions, would render the assailed decision infirm
- W/N the alleged illegality of the buy-bust operation would entitle the accused to immediate release
- W/N the invalidity of a warrantless arrest would affect the validity of the crime imputed
- W/N unlawfulness of detention (violation of Art. 125, RPC) would invalidate the crime imputed
FACTS:
In May 2000, the PNP Narcotics Group received information from a female civilian informant that a certain "Steve" was a supplier of marijuana. Surveillance and intelligence investigation was thus conducted, after which, on June 10, 2000, a buy-bust operation was conducted wherein Steve Cadley y Ciano was arrested for having violated Art. II, R.A. No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act).
The judge who originally heard the case was replaced by a newly appointed judge who rendered decision, finding accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Ciano appealed and hence this case.
ISSUE/S:
- W/N the appointment of a new judge, who has not personally heard any of the witnesses presented and, therefore, had no opportunity to observe their demeanor vis-a-vis the truthfulness of their versions, would render the assailed decision infirm
- W/N the alleged illegality of the buy-bust operation would entitle the accused to immediate release
- W/N the invalidity of a warrantless arrest would affect the validity of the crime imputed
- W/N unlawfulness of detention (violation of Art. 125, RPC) would invalidate the crime imputed
HELD:
First Issue: Compentency of Judge's Authority
That a judge did not hear a case does not necessarily render him less competent in assessng the credibility of witnesses. He can rely on the transcripts of stenographic notes of their testimony and calibrate them in accordance with their conformity to common experience, knowledge and observation of ordinary men.
Second Issue: Illegality of Buy-bust Operation
A prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment or buy-bust operation. Neither is the fact that no money changed hands a critical factor that affects the outcome of the case at bar. Moreover, Art. II, R.A. No. 6425 punishes not only the sale but also the mere act of delivery of prohibited drugs.
As for the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of PO2 Lopez and SPO4 Jamisolamin, the same are minor and do not detract from the veracity and weight of the salient points thereof. What is important is that the testimonies are supported by physical evidence.
Neither is it improbable for appellant (Ciano) to deal in drugs openly in a public place to persons he hardly knew, for drug dealers are known to sell their goods even to strangers. In the case at bar, the presentation of teh confidential informant, whose identity must be hidden to preserve his invaluable service to the police, the sale having been adequately proven by prosecution witnesses.
If the only reason appellant was brought to the police station was, as he claims, to extort money, why did he fail to file charges -- administrative or criminal -- against the policemen, especially in the light of the fact that his uncle who came to his rescue is a military sergeant and, therefore, ought to have been aware and knowledgeable of appellant's rights in the premises.
Third Issue: Invalidity of the Warrantless Arrest
Finally, appellant's challenge on his warrantless arrest fails. When an accused is apprehended in flagrante delicto, under sec. 5, rule 113, paragraphs (a) and (b) of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as a result of a buy-bust operation, as in appellant's case, the police are not only authorized but duty-bound to arest him even without a warrant.
Fourth Issue: Unlawful Detainer
While a public officer who thus detains a person beyond the legal period (provided under Art. 125, RPC) may be held criminally liable, the proceeding taken against him for the act he has committed remains unaffected, for the two acts are distinct and separate.
