PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.

ROLANDO LUA
256 SCRA 539 | April 26, 1996
Regalado, J.

Doctrines:
1. Buy-bust operation conducted by the police operatives is a form of entrapment
allowed by law.
2. Searches made incidental to a lawful arrest is limited to body search and to that
point within reach or control of the person arrested.

FACTS
Accused-appellant assails the decision of the RTC which found him guilty of violating
Sec. 4, Art 2 of R.A. 6425 and of P.D 1866. It is alleged that pursuant to Oplan Saturn which
aims to address the growing problem of drugs in Caloocan, a buy-bust operation was conducted
by police operatives for the entrapment of accused-appellant. It is said that the police received a
report that accused-appellant is engaged in illegal drug activities and to verify said report, a
police informer was dispatched to the vicin of Lua. Upon verifying the same, police officer
Guerrero who acted as poseur-buyer marked 3 10 peso-bills, approached the accused-appellant
and expressed his intent to buy marijuana. Upon receipt of the marked bills, accused-appellants
went inside his house and returned with 3 small tea bags of marijuana which prompted the police
officers to immediately arrest him. Another police officer noticed something bulging from the
waistline of the appellant, so he immediately frisked him and found .38 cal. paltik. When asked
to point out to the whereabouts of the rest of marijuana, appellant hesitantly pointed to the
soapbox containing marijuana.
Based from the foregoing, separate information was filed against accused-appellant.
Meanwhile, accused-appellant denies all the charges against him and contends that he was
sleeping when a security guard handcuffed him. He also faults the trial court for giving credence
to the testimonies of the police authorities.

ISSUES AND HOLDING

1. W/N the arrest was valid? - YES

In the case at bar, the police authorities conducted an entrapment operation to
verify the report the accused-appellant is engaged in illegal drug activities and to arrest
him. Buy-bust operations is a form of entrapment allowed by law and warrantless arrest
made in pursuant of such is analogous to those arrests made in flagrante delicto.

2. W/N the evidence obtained is admissible as evidence? – YES with the exception of those
found inside the appellants house.
The seizure of the 3 tea bags containing marijuana without warrant is justified
being the fruits of a crime. With respect to the body search made by Puno, the same was
valid being incidental to a lawful arrest. Therefore, the .38 cal. paltik and the two (2) live
bullets and the empty shell found in the cylinder are admissible in evidence.
However, the brick of marijuana inside the appellants house was correctly
disregarded by the trial court due to its inadmissibility. While initially the arrest as well
as the body search was lawful, the warrantless search made inside appellants house

SERAPIO C2021 | 1
 became unlawful since the police operatives were not armed with a search warrant. Such
search cannot fall under search made incidental to a lawful arrest, the same being limited
to body search and to that point within reach or control of the person arrested, or that
which may furnish him with the means of committing violence or of escaping. In the case
at bar, appellant was admittedly outside his house when he was arrested. Hence, it can
hardly be said that the inner portion of his house was within his reach or control.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the court a quo  is MODIFIED. 

SERAPIO C2021 | 2