FUERTE, Ma. Florence R.

Criminal Procedure
2016-80074 | June 21, 2017 Atty. Salvador S. Panelo
People vs Agulay
566 SCRA 571
September 26, 2008
Facts:
On 24 August 2002, at aound 6:30pm, in informant arrived at Police Station and reported that a
certain Sing had been selling shabby at Brgy. Sta Lucia in Novaliches, Quezon City. A police Entrapment
team was formed to conduct a buy-bust operation. PO2 Herrera bought Shabu using the Marked P100.00
bill. Sing gave a small plastic sachet to PO2 Herrera who, thereafter, scratched his head as a signal. The
other police companions who were deployed nearby, rushed to the crime scene. PO2 grabbed Sing and then
frisked him. They recovered two (2) plastic sachets from Sings pocket and the marked money from Sing.
In defense of Narciso Sing Agulay, he alleged that there was no buy-bust operation happened but
instead, he arrested while manning his store, without any valid warrant of arrest. Then he was placed in
detention cell and police officers asked him from money so they will not file a case against him.
Consequently, Sing was charged in an information before the RTC of Quezon City with violation
of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 or Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

Section 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.

Although Sing contends that his arrest was illegal, making the sachets of shabby allegedly
recovered from him inadmissible as evidence. RTC and CA held that Narciso Agulay is guilty of illegal
sale and illegal possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).

Issue:
Whether the warrantless arrest conducted during but-bust operation was valid.

Held:
Accused-appellants claim is devoid of merit for it is a well-established rule that an arrest made
after an entrapment operation does not require a warrant inasmuch as it is considered a valid warrantless
arrest, in line with the provisions of Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the Revised Rules of Court, to wit:

Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.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.

A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which in recent years has been accepted as a valid
and effective mode of apprehending drug pushers. In a buy-bust operation, the idea to commit a crime
originates from the offender, without anybody inducing or prodding him to commit the offense. If carried
out with due regard for constitutional and legal safeguards, a buy-bust operation deserves judicial sanction.
There are eight (8) instances when a warrantless search and seizure is valid, to wit:

(1) consented searches; (2) as an incident to a lawful arrest; (3) searches of vessels and aircraft for
violation of immigration, customs, and drug laws; (4) searches of moving vehicles; (5) searches of
automobiles at borders or constructive borders; (6) where the prohibited articles are in plain view;
(7) searches of buildings and premises to enforce fire, sanitary, and building regulations; and (8) stop
and frisk operations.

Considering that the legitimacy of the buy-bust operation is beyond question, the subsequent
warrantless arrest and warrantless search and seizure, were permissible. The search, clearly being incident
to a lawful arrest, needed no warrant for its validity. Thus, contrary to accused-appellants contention, the
FUERTE, Ma. Florence R. Criminal Procedure
2016-80074 | June 21, 2017 Atty. Salvador S. Panelo
contraband seized from him, having been obtained as a result of the buy-bust operation to which the defense
failed to impute any irregularity, was correctly admitted in evidence.

Domingo vs. Colina

698 SCRA 574
June 17, 2013
Facts:
In an Information dated March 8, 1999, herein petitioner was charged before the Municipal Trial
Court in Cities, Davao City, with violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22), to wit:

That on or about February 28, 1998 in the City of Davao, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-mentioned accused, knowing fully well that he/she have (sic) no funds
and/or credit with the drawee bank, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously issued UCPB Check No.
0014924 dated February 28, 1998 in the amount of P175,000.00 in payment of an obligation in favor
of Merlinda Dy Colina; but when the said check was presented to the drawee bank for encashment, the
same was dishonored for the reason "ACCOUNT CLOSED" and despite notice of dishonor and
repeated demands upon him/her to make good the check, he/she failed and refused to make payment or
to deposit the face amount of the check, to the damage and prejudice of herein complainant in the
aforesaid amount.

The case proceeded to trial. After the prosecution rested its case, the defense filed a Demurrer to
Evidence. It shows that prosecution, in the records of this case, failed to prove the second and third elements
of the crime of violation of BP 22, to wit:

(1)a person draws and issues a check; (2) the check is applied on account or for value; (3) the person
issuing the check knows at the time of its issuance that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with
the bank for the full payment of the check upon its presentment; and (4) the check is dishonored by the
bank for insufficiency of funds or credit.

Consequently, the case was dismissed. The prosecution filed a motion to reopen the civil aspect of
the case. The prosecution contended that even assuming that petitioner did not receive valuable
consideration for her bounced check, she is nonetheless liable to respondent for the face value of the check
as an accommodation party and, that petitioner's knowledge of the insufficiency of her funds in or credit
with the bank is presumed from the dishonor of her check.

Issue:
Whether the civil aspect of criminal case can be reopened despite the acquittal of the accused

Held:
No. The last paragraph of Section 2, Rule 111 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
provides:

The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil action. However, the civil
action based on delict shall be deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a final judgment in the
criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist.

By virtue of the provision above, it is a settled rule that the judgment shall determine if the act or
omission from which the civil liability might arise did not exist.
While MTCC subsequently held in its November 23, 2001 Order that "the act from which the civil
liability of the accused in favor of the private complainant may arise does not exist in this case," the MTCC,
nonetheless, failed to cite evidence, factual circumstances or any discussion decision which would warrant
such ruling. Instead, it simply concluded that since the prosecution failed to prove all the elements of the
offense charged, then the act from which the civil liability might arise did not exist.
However, after a careful review of the above-mentioned Orders, the Court finds nothing therein
which the MTCC could have used as a reasonable ground to arrive at its conclusion that the act or omission
FUERTE, Ma. Florence R. Criminal Procedure
2016-80074 | June 21, 2017 Atty. Salvador S. Panelo
from which petitioner's civil liability might arise did not exist. Thus, the civil action based on delict shall
be deemed extinguished.