Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1829
DECISION
SERENO, J.:
ensued.
and
forensic
chemist
testified
for
the
[2]
THE
INTEGRITY
AND
EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF THE
ALLEGED
SUBJECT
SPECIMEN
HAS
BEEN
COMPROMISED.
(iv)
THE
GUILT OF
THE
ACCUSED-PETITIONER WAS
NOT PROVEN BEYOND THE
REASONABLE DOUBT (sic).[7]
of
two
plastic
sachets
later
found
to
held:
WHEREFORE, judgment is
hereby rendered, finding accused
RODEL LUZ y ONG GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt for the crime of
violation of Section 11, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165 and sentencing
him to suffer the indeterminate penalty
of imprisonment ranging from twelve
(12) years and (1) day, as minimum, to
thirteen (13) years, as maximum, and to
pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand
Pesos (300,000.00).
following grounds in
(ii)
appeal throws the entire case wide open for review and
the reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though
THE
SEARCH
AND
SEIZURE OF THE ALLEGED
SUBJECT SHABU IS INVALID.
THE PRESUMPTION OF
REGULARITY
IN
THE
PERFORMANCE OF DUTY OF
THE
POLICE
OFFICER
m. If
submission is necessary.[11]
Similarly,
the
Philippine
National
Police
(PNP)
Second, circumstances
associated with the typical traffic
stop are not such that the motorist
feels completely at the mercy of the
police. To be sure, the aura of authority
surrounding an armed, uniformed officer
and the knowledge that the officer has
some discretion in deciding whether to
issue a citation, in combination, exert
some pressure on the detainee to
respond to questions. But other aspects
of the situation substantially offset these
forces. Perhaps most importantly, the
typical traffic stop is public, at least to
some degree. x x x
xxxxxxxxx
inform the latter of the reason for the arrest and must
show that person the warrant of arrest, if any. Persons
shall be informed of their constitutional rights to remain
silent and to counsel, and that any statement they might
make could be used against them. [14] It may also be
noted that in this case, these constitutional requirements
were
complied
with
by
the
police
officers
had
been
arrested
for
illegal
and while he waiting for his ticket, then there would have
case, all that was alleged was that petitioner was alone
at
the
police
station
at
three
in
the
morning,
accompanied
by
several
police
officers.
These
Neither does the search qualify under the stop and frisk
[15]
None
immediately apparent.[16]
[17]
It must be
patdown:
of
the
passenger
compartment,
including
any containers therein,
pursuant to a custodial arrest, New York
v. Belton, 453 U. S. 454, 460 (1981).
Nor has Iowa shown the second
justification for the authority to search
incident to arrestthe need to discover
and preserve evidence. Once Knowles
was stopped for speeding and issued a
citation, all the evidence necessary to
prosecute that offense had been
obtained. No further evidence of
excessive speed was going to be found
either on the person of the offender or in
the passenger compartment of the car.
(Emphasis supplied.)
effects
seizures.
[23]
against
unreasonable
searches
and
Case
No.
RTC
2003-0087,
is
is
immediately
released
from
detention,
ordered
unless
his
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 182601
CONTRARY TO LAW.11
The Issues
The petitioners cited the following assignment of errors:
I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONERS
WERE VALIDLY ARRESTED WITHOUT A
WARRANT.
II.
WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONERS
WERE LAWFULLY ARRESTED WHEN THEY
WERE MERELY INVITED TO THE POLICE
PRECINCT.
III.
WHETHER OR NOT THE ORDER DENYING
THE MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION IS VOID FOR FAILURE TO
STATE THE FACTS AND THE LAW UPON
WHICH IT WAS BASED.
10
11
12
13
14
The Court held that the arrest of del Rosario did not
comply with these requirements because he was
arrested only a day after the commission of the crime
and not immediately thereafter. Additionally, the arresting
officers were not present and were not actual
eyewitnesses to the crime. Hence, they had no personal
knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be
arrested had committed the offense. They became
aware of del Rosario's identity as the driver of the
getaway tricycle only during the custodial investigation.
15
16
scene of the crime less than one (1) hour after the
alleged mauling; the alleged crime transpired in a
community where Atty. Generoso and the petitioners
reside; Atty. Generoso positively identified the petitioners
as those responsible for his mauling and, notably, the
petitioners85and Atty. Generoso86 lived almost in the
same neighborhood; more importantly, when the
petitioners were confronted by the arresting officers, they
did not deny their participation in the incident with Atty.
Generoso, although they narrated a different version of
what transpired.87
17
PEREZ,
MENDOZA,
SERENO, JJ
Promulgated
September 7
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
For review is the Decision[1] dated April 1, 2008 of the
affirmed
with
modification
the
Joint
SO ORDERED.
CESAR FORTUNA,
Petitioner,
- versus -
- versus -
Present:
CORONA,
CARPIO, Meanwhile, at about 8:40 a.m., Senior Police Officer
CARPIO MORALES,
(SPO) 2 Arthur Ortiz, the desk officer on duty at Station 8
VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA, of the Central Police District Command (CPDC) located
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
at P. Tuazon Blvd., Project 4, Quezon City, answered a
BRION,*
PERALTA, telephone call from a male person who reported a
BERSAMIN,
shooting incident along Katipunan Avenue. Station
DEL CASTILLO,
ABAD,
Commander Police Chief Inspector (Insp.) Edward
VILLARAMA, JR.,
18
[4]
shots at the man inside it. One (1) of the men who were
positioned at the left side of the car opened its door and
board her white KIA Pride, was following the victims car
Villena went to their station to get his camera. [5] After ten
[12]
19
splinters.[13]
the inside of the car, and he was also the one (1) who
be
compensated
for
his
participation. When
they
who
was
who were in the L-300 van whose name he did not know.
[17]
was
his
neighbor
at
Ruby
St. Larry
Lorenzo, Ram and Cesar were the ones who fired shots,
split so that three (3) of them rode the L-300 van and the
driver. Upon
and
reaching
Commonwealth Avenue
20
DANTE
MONTEVIRGEN
y
VILLANUEVA, 37 years old,
married,
selfemployed/gunsmith, native of
Pula, Oriental Mindoro and with
given address at 1412 Riverside
Street, Commonwealth Avenue,
Bgy. Holy Spirit, Quezon City.
x x x[20]
21
Information:
P/Insp.
Castillo,
testifying
on
cross-examination,
Contrary to law.[25]
66682
and
Q-96-66683),
[26]
our
discussion
of
the
brought
by
the
CPDC. The
CPDC
provided
the
SPO2
22
Jose
L.
Garcia,
Jr.
propounding
the
for the first time about a suspect (Joel) who was just
up operations.[29]
that time, he warned Joel that his case was serious and
Sansano and Joel talked inside the room for five (5) to
the IBP. Between 12:30 and 1:00 p.m., he and his men,
and that was the time Atty. Sansano announced that Joel
23
the
his
affirmative. Joel
signed
the
statement
in
On
cross-examination,
SPO2
Garcia,
Jr.
told him, Yes, sir. P/Insp. Castillo had told him that Joel
24
which they were called again to enter the office. His two
District, who told him that the said suspect was willing to
they
started
the
investigation
proper. The
police
statement. Afterwards,
he
let
Lorenzo
read
the
around.[38]
before
the
office
of
Prosecutor
Ben
dela
25
immediately
apprehended
Fortuna
and
identified
1996, and he was told that Joel would be giving this time
Lorenzos body.[42]
over
4:00
arrested Lorenzo.[46]
to
the
CID-CPDC
at
about
past
The
principal
witness
for
the
prosecution
26
black car who was shot by four (4) persons infront of the
adjacent
building
was
also
being
post as elevated; and two (2) arms length on the left and
right side, there was an alley just beside the guard post
standing on the left side of the car (left front door), grab
the direction of the front door of the car (rear end). From
the victim by the neck, get the clutch bag of the victim
inside the car, pull said victim out of the car, and drop
more or less ten (10) meters. The first time one (1) of the
saw four (4) men standing around the victims car, two (2)
on the left side, and two (2) on the right side. He saw
only two (2) of them (the ones at the front left and right
short firearms. One (1) of these two (2) got the clutch
bag (at the left front side of the car), grabbed the victim
him. This time, he did come down, lowering his body and
down the road. Even if he could not see the gun when
that assailant pulled the victim from the car, he knew that
just beside the left side of the car where the victim was
ka!; No. 1 who grabbed the victim, got his clutch bag and
at the right rear side, left rear side, and front right side)
moment the gun was not yet poked at him, he was able
head inside the guard house. The color of the clutch bag
was just standing and facing the victim with a gun in his
taken from the victim was black. He could see the inside
of the car from his guard post because the cars glass
27
the
contents
of
xxx
his Sinumpaang
COURT:
xxx
COURT:
xxx
INTERPRETER:
On
September
26,
1996,
the
trial
court
defense
counsel,
Alejo
and
Maj.
xxx
INTERPRETER:
COURT:
From this position, the Presiding Judge
can see the car very clearly
even if the car would be moved
back by another segment of the
cement or even if it is forwarded
by another segment also, as
segment can accommodate one
car of the likes of Honda Accord
and the Court observes that
from the guard post the faces of
the persons beside the car are
very clear.
xxx
INTERPRETER:
The
xxx
xxx
INTERPRETER:
COURT:
xxx
28
COURT:
P/Insp.
Castillo,
on
re-direct
examination
during
the
time
the
Defense Evidence
latters Sinumpaang
ballistic and
before
the
City
Prosecutor
for
inquest
[62]
repair of the Honda Accord and loss of the .45 cal gold
were fired from one (1) and the same firearm. [66] The
saddened
by
the
tragic
death
of
her
(Ana, 14; Nico, 13; and BJ, 10), and one had just
Merlito
Herbas,
in
his Karagdagang
one (1) of those men who shot the victim on June 13,
and new scars on left arm, right foot and second toe.
29
[71]
All said wounds required not more than nine (9) days
bag. He
witness said that for one (1) hour his captors repeatedly
complained of.[73]
could
not
breathe
and
lost
stated
F-086-96
document
with the latent prints lifted from the Honda Accord and
that if a person had touched the car and rubbed it, there
would
lifted
taken from inside the Honda Accord nor was there any
amin.[76]
in
be
no
Dactyloscopy
fingerprint
Report
that
No.
could
be
(Sinumpaang
Salaysay dated
June
20,
but they forced him into the van, and handcuffed and
not say anything about the illegality of his arrest and the
direct
30
examination,
he
denied
having
executed
suspects
Camp
found. Still
for councilor in their place. All he knows was that his co-
in
the
Abadilla
slaying
inside
blindfolded,
he
led
them
to
Palmera
and said it was not the place where Col. Abadilla was
was not there. He was made to sit the whole night in the
kitchen.[81]
31
repair
mag-
Avenue, that a .45 cal pistol was inserted into his mouth
positively identified.[84]
on
May
10,
1996,
saying ayaw
particular
32
logbook
containing
the
record
of
the
Manzano
entry.
in May 1996.[87]
[86]
who
xeroxed
the
said
logbook
taken from me, everything was still fresh and there were
say
aking
he mention it to Fiscal
because masama
who
pa
interviewed
him
ang
after
the
press
conference, as they did not ask him about it. [88] He had
[91]
was registered in his own name, but said jeep had been
mortgaged to Danilo Lintag since May 27, 1996.[92]
alibi.[93]
barged into their house. He was hit in the neck with a .45
him to admit that Joel de Jesus gave him big money and
helped
Fabella Hospital.[94]
33
his Tito. He
confirmed
the
contents
of
other
preparations
for
the
celebration
of
the
accused
were
presented
at
press
wedding
was
inside
were
Mabalacat,
were
the
car;
handcuffed. Without
Costibollo
and
any
warrant,
Lumanog
they
included
in
but
the
kidnapping
asserted
that
it
charge
filed
in
was trumped-up
much
Ram
gave
them,
to
which
Fortuna
ACCORDINGLY, judgment
hereby rendered as follows:
is
xxx
2. Accused
SPO2
Cesar
Fortuna y Abudo, Rameses de Jesus y
Calma, Leonardo Lumanog y Luistro
(a.k.a. Leonido or Lenido), Joel de
34
delos
hereby
testifying
for
the
defense. Moreover,
despite
the
elevated position at his guard post and the fact that the
ambush had taken place before his very eyes, so near
that one (1) of the conspirators had to order him to lie flat
(which obviously he could not do because of the narrow
SO ORDERED.[99]
35
and Joel, both in the police line-up and again inside the
Lumanog
and
and
Rameses
was
incredible
WHEREFORE,
premises
considered, the court resolves:
36
these
cases
to
the
Honorable Supreme Court
for
automatic
review
pursuant to law, the Rules
of Court and the Joint
Decision of this court dated
July 30, 1999.
SO ORDERED.
[108]
2000.[111]
penalty of death.[109]
37
Ruling of the CA
xxx
On April 1, 2008, the CA rendered the assailed decision,
thus:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the
foregoing, the impugned decision is
AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION
that
the
accused-appellants
are
sentenced each to suffer reclusion
perpetua without the benefit of parole.
The CA upheld the conviction of the accusedappellants based on the credible eyewitness testimony
of Alejo, who vividly recounted before the trial court their
respective positions and participation in the fatal
shooting of Abadilla, having been able to witness closely
how they committed the crime. On the sufficiency of
prosecution evidence to establish appellants guilt
beyond reasonable doubt and the scant weight of their
xxx
Finally, Cesar Fortuna claims
that he was in Camp Crame on the day
the murder took place. But it was not
impossible for him to have gone to
Katipunan Road, Blue Ridge, which is
relatively near Camp Crame when the
shooting happened around 8:40 in the
morning. After the shooting, he could
38
xxx
in accordance
with
A.M.
No.
00-5-03-
x x x. Pangalawa, ang
mga
karapatan
ng
mga
mamamayan na natatala sa
Saligang Batas (sa Bill of
Rights) ay hindi mga paraan
upang ang isang tunay na may
pagkakasala na labag sa batas,
ay makaligtas sa nararapat na
pagdurusa. Ang
tunay
na
layunin ng mga tadhanang iyon
ng Saligang Batas ay walang
iba kundi tiyakin na sinumang
nililitis ay magkaroon ng sapat
na pagkakataon at paraan na
maipagtanggol ang sarili, bukod
sa pagbabawal ng pagtanggap
ng katibayan (evidence) laban
sa kanya na bunga ng pagpipilit,
dahas at iba pang paraang
labag sa kanyang kalooban.
Appellants Arguments
39
relief.
Finally, the appellants argue that the penalty of reclusion
[126]
to
Sec.
of
R.A.
No.
9346
is
contend
that
the
questioned
Court.
[127]
identification
lone
Rights.
eyewitness
provided
through
by
the
the
totality
prosecutions
of
circumstances
40
Our Ruling
they eventually set out the facts and the law on which
they were based, as when they stated the legal
qualifications of the offense constituted by the facts
is
affirmed,
as
the
testimonial
and
In the same vein, we have expressed concern
rights are at stake but also the liberty if not the life of a
x x x x x x x x x. [EMPHASIS
SUPPLIED.]
or
sufficiently
complied
with
the
41
sufficiency
of
prosecution
evidence,
their
of
ballistic
and
fingerprint
test
results,
C
o
n
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
o
f
J
o
e
l
presented by appellants.
Rights of Accused During
Custodial Investigation
d
e
in Article
III,
Section
12
of
J
e
s
u
s
the 1987
N
o
t
V
a
l
i
d
Custodial investigation refers to the critical pretrial stage when the investigation is no longer a general
inquiry into an unsolved crime, but has begun to focus
on a particular person as a suspect. [136] Police officers
42
P/Insp.
Castillo
admitted
that
the
initial
[137]
intimidation
or
violence
in
the
hands
of
police
a. Any
person
arrested,
detained
or
under custodial
investigation shall at all times be
assisted by counsel.
b. Any
public
officer
or
employee, or anyone acting under his
order or his place, who arrests, detains
or investigates any person for the
commission of an offense shall inform
the latter, in a language known to and
understood by him, of his rights to
remain silent and to have competent
and independent counsel, preferably of
his own choice, who shall at all times be
allowed to confer private with the person
arrested, detained or under custodial
investigation. If such person cannot
afford the services of his own counsel,
he must be provided by with a
competent and independent counsel.
assuming
that
custodial
investigation
is
not
valid
and
not
xxxx
of
the
investigation.
rights
of
persons
under
custodial
[140]
statement. The
phrase preferably
of
his
own
43
[141]
he may reject the counsel chosen for him and ask for
[145]
probative value.[146]
and
independent in
the
1987
[147]
present and able to advise and assist his client from the
his extrajudicial
presumed innocent.[144]
Garcia, Jr. did not say if Atty. Sansano, in the first place,
verified from them the date and time of Joels arrest and
authorities. The
CHR,
however,
found prima
of physical torture.
44
By
resolution
of
January
18,
2005,
we
[149]
As per the
the
the International
2008.
United
Nations
Communication
Human
No.
Rights
Committee
1466/2006
Covenant
on
that
Civil
in
under
and
Political
[151]
Section
quasi-judicial,
16,
or
Article
III
administrative
of
[159]
[154]
In this case, the records of Criminal Case No. Q96-66684 were transmitted to this Court for automatic
review on February 11, 2000. On September 7, 2001,
appeal briefs for the present review had been filed and
45
took
place.
Appellants
make
much
of
few
the fact that the judge who heard the evidence was not
trial court even verified for itself how Alejo could have
their guns at him one [1] after the other, and later when
the four [4] armed men standing around the victims car
46
which
case, the trial court did not rely solely on said out-of-
he
executed
the Karagdagang
Sinumpaang
v. Teehankee,
explained
the
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
47
(8)
(9)
Applying
totality-of-circumstances
test,
the
identified
appellant
Joel
de
Jesus
just 22 years old and not 30-35 years of age, and who
shooting incident, and as one (1) of the two (2) men who
complexioned.
he
gave
in
court. This
assertion
is
co-accused
precise, it was not that far from his true age, especially if
does
not
necessarily
benefit
the
made two (2) months prior to the dates of the trial when
48
them
from
liability
for
the
killing
of
victims
of
ambush-slay
perpetrated
by
been lifted from inside the KIA Pride and only two (2)
the finding that the empty shells and slug matched those
reason
that
it
cannot
prevail
over
the
positive
[181]
To be
members, such that they could have been fired from the
the appellants who are on trial in this case and not the
are
not
convincing evidence.
As regards the failure of the
police to present a ballistic report on the
seven spent shells recovered from the
crime scene, the same does not
constitute suppression of evidence. A
ballistic report serves only as a guide for
the courts in considering the ultimate
facts of the case. It would be
indispensable if there are no credible
eyewitnesses to the crime inasmuch as
it is corroborative in nature. The
[183]
substantiated
by
clear
and
49
the victim.[186]
in People v. Delmendo:[184]
Evident premeditation was likewise properly appreciated
Proper Penalty
appellants
and
the trial court. At the time the crime was committed, the
--
was
deliberate,
sudden
50
With
the
presence
of
the
aggravating
[R]eclusion perpetua is
the only penalty that can be
imposed against the appellants.
As correctly argued by the
Solicitor General, Act No. 4103,
otherwise
known
as
theIndeterminate Sentence Law,
cannot be applied in the case of
appellants
considering
the
proscription
in
Sec.
2
thereof, viz:
xxxx
Indeed, in People v.
Asturias, Serrano v. Court of
Appeals,
People
v.
Lampaza and People v. Tan, to
name a few cases, we in effect
equated the penalty of reclusion
perpetua as synonymous to lifeimprisonment for purposes of
the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, and ruled that the latter law
does not apply to persons
convicted
of
offenses
punishable with the said penalty.
Consequently, we affirm the
Court of Appeals in not applying
the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, and in imposing upon
appellants
the
penalty
of reclusion perpetua instead.
Reclusion
perpetua is
an
indivisible penalty without a minimum or
maximum period. Parole, on the other
hand, is extended only to those
sentenced to divisible penalties as is
evident from Sec. 5 of the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, which provides that it is
only after any prisoner shall have served
the minimum penalty imposed on him
that the Board of Indeterminate
Sentence may consider whether such
prisoner may be granted parole.[191]
As
succinctly
v. Gardon
explained
by
this
Court
[192]
in People
Dante
Tinga
in People
v.
Tubongbanua,
wit:
[190]
51
Civil Liability
damages;
(3)
moral
damages;
(4)
SO ORDERED.
[194]
RESOLUTION
Antecedent Facts
Contrary to law.4cralawred
cralawlawlibrary
52
53
QA-
QA-
Q-
A-
xxx
x
Q- What happened?
AHinawakan ko siya. Tapos pinakuha ko kung ano
iyong laman ng bulsa niya. Ayun na recover ko sa
kanyang possession iyong dalawang daan.15
cralawlawlibrary
SO ORDERED.14cralawlawlibrary
Hence, this appeal where appellant points out that: (1)
there was no in flagrante delicto arrest as he was not
committing any crime at the time he was apprehended
but was merely watching a bingo game; (2) it was
inconceivable for him to openly sell illegal drugs as PO1
Gunda himself testified that at the time of the alleged
sale transaction there were many people around the
target area; (3) the apprehending officers failed to
comply with the guidelines on the proper custody of the
seized dangerous drug, specifically with respect to its
inventory and taking of photograph, and this casts doubt
on whether the plastic sachet with white crystalline
substance identified in court was the same item
allegedly seized and confiscated from him; and (4) the
testimonies of PO1 Gunda and PO2 Familara as to who
was in possession of the seized item from the target
area up to the police station were
conflicting.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Our Ruling
The appeal is without merit.
AQAQA-
What happened?
Sinabi niya na antayin ninyo ako diyan. Pumasok
siya sa eskinita, hindi kalayuan, mga two to three
meters.
What did he do?
He returned and gave me one plastic sachet
containing suspected shabu.
After he handed to you that plastic sachet, what did
you do next?
Nag pre-arranged signal ako para tulungan ako sa
paghuli kay alias Paeng Putol.
54
SO ORDERED.cralawlawlibrary
G.R. No. 177158 : February 06, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. LINDA ALVIZ y YATCO and ELIZABETH DE LA
VEGA y BAUTISTA, Accused-Appellants.
DECISION
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
On appeal is the Decision 1 dated September 2 7, 2006
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00489,
which affirmed the Decision2 dated December 7, 2004 of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), National Capital Judicial
Region, Branch 103, Quezon City, in Criminal Case No.
Q-03- 114964, finding accused-appellants Linda Y.
Alviz aka "Peking" (Linda) and Elizabeth B. de la
Vega aka "Beth" (Elizabeth) guilty of violating Section 5,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as
The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
55
56
57
58
59
The Case
Reynaldo Belocura y Perez, a police officer charged with
illegal possession of 1,789.823 grams of marijuana in
violation of Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act
of 1972), as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, was
found guilty of the crime charged on April 22, 2003 by
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Manila, and sentenced
to suffer reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine
of P 500,000.00.1
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the
conviction on January 23, 2006.2 Hence, this final appeal
for his acquittal.
Antecedents
Belocura was charged on April 13, 1999 by the Office of
the City Prosecutor of Manila with a violation of Section
8 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Republic Act
No. 7659, in the Manila RTC through the information:
Chief Insp. Divina said that the caller did not mention
anything about any vehicle; that he and his men were in
civilian clothes at the time; that it was PO2 Santos who
recovered the red plastic bag containing
the marijuanabricks; and that SPO1 Rojas examined the
contents of the bag in his presence.6
23, 1999. The first brick bore the marking "RB-1" and
weighed 830.532 grams while the other bore the
marking "RB-2" and weighed 959.291 grams, for a total
weight of 1,789.823 grams. She conducted a chemical
60
II
Evidence of the Defense
Issues
On March 22, 1999, Belocura was a police officer
assigned in Police Station 6 of the WPD with a tour of
duty from 3:00 pm to 11:00 pm. At 2:00 pm of that day,
he was on his way to work on board his owner-type jeep
when about thirty police officers blocked his path. He
introduced himself to them as a police officer, but they
ignored him. Instead, they disarmed and handcuffed
him, and confiscated the memorandum receipt covering
his firearm, his money and his police ID card. He
recognized some of his arrestors as former members of
the CIS. They forced him into their jeep, and brought him
to the WPD headquarters, where they locked him up in a
room that looked like a bodega. They subjected him to
interrogation on his alleged involvement in a robbery
hold-up. They informed him of the drug-related charge to
be filed against him only three days later.
III.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING IN
EVIDENCE THE MARIJUANA DESPITE THE
ILLEGALITY OF ITS SEIZURE DUE TO THE ABSENSE
(sic) OF A VALID SEARCH WARRANT.
IV.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED
WHEN HIS GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.
Belocura argues that the Prosecution did not establish
his guilt for the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt;
that his warrantless arrest was unlawful considering that
his only violation was only a breach of traffic rules and
regulations involving the illegal use of a government
plate on his newly-assembled jeep; that the warrantless
search of his jeep was contrary to law for violating his
right against illegal search and seizure protected under
Section 17, Article III (Bill of Rights) of the 1987
Constitution;17 and that the bricks
of marijuana supposedly seized from him, being the fruit
of a poisonous tree, were inadmissible against him.
61
Ruling
After a meticulous examination of the records, the Court
concludes that a reversal of the conviction is justified
and called for.
62
ATTY LEE:
q And after that, you never had the chance to see that
bag again. Is that correct?
ATTY LEE:
q It was not you who retrieved that plastic bag from the
jeep?
WITNESS:
a No, Sir.
q Who retrieved the plastic bag from the jeep?
WITNESS:
ATTY LEE :
A Yes, Sir.
a Yes, sir.
a No, Sir. When the bag was recovered from under the
drivers seat and when it was opened, I had the chance
to see it.
xxx
THE COURT:
WITNESS:
WITNESS:
ATTY LEE:
xxx
WITNESS:
THE COURT:
Already answered.
63
a Yes sir.
q You mean to say that was the first time that you saw
the marijuana?
a Yes, sir.30
a He was investigated.
q Investigated for what?
ATTY LEE:
q Mr. Witness, so you did not see the actual the alleged
recovery of marijuana, is that correct?
WITNESS:
a Yes sir.
ATTY LEE:
q And you have never that marijuana?
WITNESS:
a Yes sir. But only in the office.
q What do you only took from the accused is a gun, is
that correct?
a Yes sir.
xxx
PUB. PROS TAN, JR:
q Were you able to see the marijuana in the police
station?
WITNESS:
64
xxx
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody
and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure
and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph
the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s
from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized,
or his/her representative or counsel, a representative
from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ),
and any elected public official who shall be required to
sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and
photograph shall be conducted at the place where the
search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station
or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team,
whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures;
Provided, further that non-compliance with these
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items
are properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such
seizures of and custody over said items.
xxx
q So, it was not your group who conducted the
examination and the alleged things that were recovered
from the alleged accused?35
xxx
a No, Sir.
q How about the things that were allegedly recovered
from the accused?
a I just said that it was the General Assignment Section
who handled the investigation.36
65
66
SO ORDERED.
FIRST DIVISION
SALVADOR V. REBELLION,
Petitioner,
Contrary to law.[3]
Present:
- versus -
CORONA,
VELASCO,When
JR., arraigned on September 6, 2000, petitioner entered a
LEONARDO-DE
plea ofCASTRO,
not guilty. After pre-trial, trial on the merits forthwith
DEL CASTILLO,
PEREZ, commenced.
DECISION
gram
amended).
were
of shabu.
Factual Antecedents
67
found
positive
for
Methamphetamine
MAC team.
his person was also unlawful. Thus, the illicit items confiscated
from him are inadmissible in evidence for being violative of his
seizure.
Our Ruling
arrested.
SO ORDERED.[4]
Issue
circumstances:[7]
Sec 5. Arrest without warrant, when lawful A
peace officer or a private person may,
without a warrant, arrest a person:
68
(a)
When, in his presence,
the person to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing or is attempting to
commit an offense;
(c)
When the person to be
arrested is a prisoner who has escaped
from a penal establishment or place where
he is serving final judgment or is temporarily
confined while his case is pending, or has
escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another.
(b)
When an offense has just
been committed and he has probable cause
to believe based on personal knowledge of
facts or circumstances that the person to be
arrested has committed it; and
Clarito. Arousing
sachet
change of his P500.00 bill and that the small plastic sachet
them. Clarito was not able to completely get hold of the plastic
plastic
sachet
their
which
suspicion
contains
that
white
the
crystalline
convincing evidence.[8]
the
plastic
sachet
was
found
positive
for
rule that the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court
Under these circumstances, we entertain no doubt that
and the CA are entitled to great weight and respect and will
within the view of the arresting team. Thus, his case comes
of the case.[9]
69
xxxx
3. 200 grams or
more of shabu or
methylamphetamine
hydrochloride
xxxx
from six months and one day to four years and a fine ranging
QUANTITY
less than one (1) gram to 49-25 grams
49.26 grams to 98-50 grams
98.51 grams to 147.75 grams
147.76 grams to 199 grams
Following
the
above
illustration
and
IMPOSABL
prision corre
prision may
reclusion tem
reclusion pe
considering
gram,
the
imposable
penalty
for
the
crime
depends
drugs
on
the
quantity
of
the
dangerous
Section
20. Application
of
Penalties,
Confiscation
and Forfeiture of the
Proceeds or Instruments
of the Crime. The
penalties for offenses
under Sections 3, 4, 7, 8
and 9 of Article II and
Sections 14-A, 15 and 16
of Article III of this Act shall
be
applied
if
the
dangerous drugs involved
is in any of the following
quantities:
and
fine
ranging
from P300,000.00
premises
considered,
the
September 26, 2006 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. CR No. 29248 affirming the conviction of petitioner
Salvador V. Rebellion for the unlawful possession of 0.03
70
SO ORDERED.
Factual Antecedents
On August 15, 2003, an Information3 for violation of
Section 11, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165)
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002 was filed against Araza, the
accusatory portion of which reads as follows:
CONTRARY TO LAW.4
During arraignment, Araza pleaded "not
guilty."5 Thereafter, trial ensued.
71
SO ORDERED.13
xxxx
Issues
On February 15, 2010, the parties weredirected to file
their respective supplemental briefs but both of them
opted to just adopt the brief they submitted before the
CA.
Our Ruling
The appeal is unmeritorious.
72
5. Customs search;
6. Stop and Frisk; and
73
74
SO ORDERED.
FIRST DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.R. No.
Present:
- versus -
CORONA
VELASC
LEONAR
DEL CAS
PEREZ,
Promulga
January 1
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Proper Penalty
Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, provides:
DECISION
xxxx
xxxx
75
Article
III
of
Republic
Act
No.
(RA)
6425
or
coordination
The Facts
with
Philippine
National
Police
proceeded
to
Villa
Vicenta
Resort
following:
That on or about the 24th day of
August 2000, at Barangay Bignay II,
Municipality of Sariaya, Province of
Quezon, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, conspiring and
confederating together and mutually
helping one another, did then and there
knowingly, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously transport, deliver and
distribute, without authority of law, on
board an L-300 Mitsubishi van, bearing
Plate No. UBU 827, and have in their
possession, custody, and control,
without the corresponding license or
prescription, twenty-five (25) heatsealed
transparent
plastic
bags
containing
Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride (shabu), a regulated drug,
each containing: 2.954 grams, 2.901
grams, 2.926 grams, 2.820 grams,
2.977 grams, 2.568 grams, 2.870
grams, 2.941 grams, 2.903 grams,
2.991 grams, 2.924 grams, 2.872
grams, 2.958 grams, 2.972 grams,
2.837 grams, 2.908 grams, 2.929
grams, 2.932 grams, 2.899 grams,
2.933 grams, 2.938 grams, 2.943
grams, 2.955 grams, 2.938 grams and
2.918 grams, respectively, with a total
weight of 72.707 kilos, and one hundred
forty
seven
(147)
self-sealing
transparent plastic bags likewise
containing
Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride (shabu), also a regulated
drug, with a total weight of 291.350
kilos, or with a grand total weight of
364.057 kilos.
pointed,
when
probed
further,
to
Contrary to law.[1]
are as follows:
and
forcibly
brought
him
inside
car. He
was
76
SO ORDERED.[2]
submissions:
Kwok
Wai
Cheng
(Cheng),
II
III
Decision reads:
IV
The trial court erred when with lack of
the
desired
circumspection,
it
sweepingly ruled the admission in
evidence the 731 exhibits listed in the
prosecutions 43-page formal offer of
evidence over the itemized written
objections of the defense in a terse
verbal order (bereft of reason for the
denial of the raised objections) dictated
in open hearing which reads: All the
exhibits of the prosecution are hereby
admitted. The court believes that as far
as the evidence submitted goes, these
exhibits of the prosecution consisting of
several plastic bags of shabu were not
yet shown to be the fruit of a poisonous
plant. x x x
77
VI
VII
were
caught in
flagrante
their
arrests
and
the
seizure
of
the
SO ORDERED.[7]
THE
TRIAL
COURT
VIOLATED
ARTICLE III, SECTION 14 OF THE
78
II
warrant.Such
warrantless
arrest
is
considered
The
foregoing
proviso
refers
to
arrest in
[8]
operative,
proceeded
in Barangay Bignay
II,
to
Villa
Sariaya,
Vicenta
Quezon;
Resort
(3)
they
his prejudice.
79
A: Yes sir.
Q: Will you please describe how they
[were] loading it, Mr. Witness?
A: There were
lamps sir.
several
[fluorescent]
xxxx
Q: Where?
xxxx
Q: Where else?
A: Another at the right corner[.] There
was also somewhat a multi-purpose
house and it [was] well-lighted your
honor.
xxxx
FISCAL: May we manifest your honor
that when these six persons stood up
when their names [were] called on the
basis [of] what [was] written [on] the
information [were] once tapped on their
shoulder by this witness.
80
man
stood
and
xxxx
FISCAL: Now after they [froze], what did
you do?
xxxx
A: Yes sir.
Q: When you saw that bag could you tell
us what particular [contents] attracted
you upon seeing these bags?
[with]
pointed
to
Tan
as
their
A: Yes sir.
81
possesses
the
said
FISCAL LUGTO:
I would like to manifes[t] that Atty.
Agoot, counsel of accused Chua
Shilou Hwan, waived his right to be
present for todays trial for purposes
of identification of the alleged shabu.
caught
loading
and
possessing
illegal
ATTY SAVELLANO:
[Are] we made to understand that this
hearing is for identification of shabu
only?
FISCAL LUGTO:
Yes despite the testimony of the
Forensic
Chemist,
this
is
for
continuation with the direct testimony for
purposes of identification which was
confiscated or seized by the joint
operation of the Military and the PNP at
Sariaya, Quezon.
the
testimonies
of
the
prosecution
[15]
act like they were loading bags onto the van. Accused-
upon him and his counsel, they should have brought this
to be credible.
All told, we hold that the findings of both the RTC and
82
amended.[17] We,
therefore,
affirm
the
penalty
imposed on accused-appellants.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The CA
Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00485, finding
accused-appellants Ng Yik Bun, Kwok Wai Cheng,
Chang Chaun Shi, Chua Shilou Hwan, Kan Shun Min,
and Raymond S. Tan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
This is an appeal from the May 25, 2011 Decision1 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 31320 which
affirmed in toto the December 11, 2007 Decision2
of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 123
(RTC), convicting appellant Nazareno Villareal y Lualhati
(appellant) of violation of Section 11, Article II of
Republic Act No. 91653 (RA 9165) and sentencing him to
suffer the penalty of imprisonment for twelve (12) years
and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8)
months and to pay a fine of P300,000.00.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
When arraigned, appellant, assisted by counsel de
oficio, entered a plea of not guilty to the offense
charged.11
In his defense, appellant denied PO3 de Leons
allegations and instead claimed that on the date and
time of the incident, he was walking alone along
Avenida, Rizal headed towards 5th
83
The CA Ruling
In its assailed Decision, the CA sustained appellants
conviction, finding "a clear case of in flagrante delicto
warrantless arrest"17 as provided under Section 5, Rule
113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. The CA
held that appellant "exhibited an overt act or strange
conduct that would reasonably arouse
suspicion,"18aggravated by the existence of his past
criminal citations and his attempt to flee when PO3 de
Leon approached him.
84
85
SO ORDERED.
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 205926, July 22, 2015
ALVIN COMERCIANTE Y
GONZALES, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the
Decision2 dated October 20, 2011 and the
Resolution3 dated February 19, 2013 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 32813, which
affirmed in toto the Judgment4 dated July 28, 2009 of the
Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, Branch 213
(RTC) in Crim. Case No. MC-03-7242-D convicting
petitioner Alvin Comerciante y Gonzales (Comerciante)
of the crime of illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs
defined and penalized under Section 11, Article II of
Republic Act No. (RA) 9165,5 otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Facts
CONTRARY TO LAW.6
According to the prosecution, at around 10 o'clock in the
evening of July 30, 2003, Agent Eduardo Radan (Agent
Radan) of the NARCOTICS group and PO3 Bienvy
Calag II (PO3 Calag) were aboard a motorcycle,
patrolling the area while on their way to visit a friend at
Private Road, Barangay Hulo, Mandaluyong City.
Cruising at a speed of 30 kilometers per hour along
Private Road, they spotted, at a distance of about 10
meters, two (2) men - later identified as Comerciante
and a certain Erick Dasilla7 (Dasilla) - standing and
showing "improper and unpleasant movements," with
86
87
xxxx
Q: Now how far were you when you saw this incident
from these two male persons you already
identified?
xxxx
Q: What did you say to them? How did you invite them?
In short, napakasimple lang ng tanong ko sa yo eh.
Did you say anything?
Court:
Pros. Silao:
Are you fit to testify? May sakit ka ba o wala?
88
Witness:
Wala po.
Pros. Silao:
Eh, bakit di ka makapagsalita?
Court:
You keep touching your eyes. Just relax. Answer the
question, ano sinabi mo sa kanila?
Pros. Silao:
Are you fit to testify? Wala ka bang sakit?
Witness:
Wala po.
xxxx
Q: From what portion of his body, I am referring to Alvin
Comerciante did you recover the plastic sachet?
A: From his hand ma'am.
Q: Left or right hand?
Pros. Silao:
You cannot recall? Hindi mo matandaan. Sabihin
mo kung hindi mo matandaan, no problem.
Kaliwa, kanan or you cannot recall?30 (Emphases
and underscoring supplied)
On the basis of such testimony, the Court finds it highly
implausible that PO3 Calag, even assuming that he has
perfect vision, would be able to identify with reasonable
accuracy especially from a distance of around 10
meters, and while aboard a motorcycle cruising at a
speed of 30 kilometers per hour miniscule amounts of
white crystalline substance inside two (2) very small
plastic sachets held by Comerciante. The Court also
notes that no other overt act could be properly attributed
to Comerciante as to rouse suspicion in the mind of PO3
Calag that the former had just committed, was
committing, or was about to commit a crime. Verily, the
acts of standing around with a companion and handing
over something to the latter cannot in any way be
considered criminal acts. In fact, even if Comerciante
and his companion were showing "improper and
unpleasant movements" as put by PO3 Calag, the same
would not have been sufficient in order to effect a lawful
warrantless arrest under Section 5 (a), Rule 113 of the
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.31 That his
reasonable suspicion bolstered by (a) the fact that he
had seen his fellow officers arrest persons in possession
ofshabu; and (b) his trainings and seminars on illegal
drugs when he was still assigned in the province are
insufficient to create a conclusion that what he
purportedly saw in Comerciante was
indeedshabu.32redarclaw
xxxx
Normally, "stop and frisk" searches do not give the law
enforcer an opportunity to confer with a judge to
determine probable cause. In Posadas v. Court of
Appeals, one of the earliest cases adopting the "stop
and frisk" doctrine in Philippine jurisprudence, this
court approximated the suspicious circumstances as
probable cause:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
The probable cause is that when the petitioner acted
suspiciously and attempted to flee with the buri bag
there was a probable cause that he was concealing
something illegal in the bag and it was the right and duty
of the police officers to inspect the same.
For warrantless searches, probable cause was defined
as a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by
circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to
warrant a cautious man to believe that the person
accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged.
Malacat v. Court of Appeals clarifies the requirement
further. It does not have to be probable cause, but it
cannot be mere suspicion. It has to be a genuine
reason to serve the purposes of the "stop and frisk"
exception:
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Other notable points of Terry are that while probable
cause is not required to conduct a "stop and frisk,"
it nevertheless holds that mere suspicion or a hunch
will not validate a "stop and frisk." A genuine reason
must exist, in light of the police officer's experience
and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief
that the person detained has weapons concealed
about him.
89
are as follows:
SECOND DIVISION
- versus -
2. That accused is a
resident
of
Brgy. Lunoy,
San
Gabriel, La Union;
BELEN MARIACOS,
Appellant.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
90
When
the
jeepney
reached
the poblacion, PO2 Pallayoc alighted
together with the other passengers.
Unfortunately, he did not notice who
took the black backpack from atop the
jeepney. He only realized a few
moments later that the said bag and
three (3) other bags, including a blue
plastic bag, were already being carried
away by two (2) women. He caught up
with the women and introduced himself
as a policeman. He told them that they
were under arrest, but one of the women
got away.
6. That
the
drugs
allegedly obtained
from the accused
contained (sic) and
submitted
for
examination
weighed
7,030.3
grams;
7. The
Prosecutor
admits
the
existence
of
a
counter-affidavit
executed by the
accused; and
8. The existence of the
affidavits executed
by the witnesses of
the accused family
(sic): Lyn Punasen,
Mercedes Tila and
Magdalena Carino.
91
station
that
accused-appellant
discovered the true contents of the bags
which she was asked to carry. She
maintained that she was not the owner
of the bags and that she did not know
what were contained in the bags. At the
police station (sic) she executed a
Counter-Affidavit.[3]
SO ORDERED.[4]
[5]
[10]
bricks of marijuana
were
was practicable.[11]
bag that contained the illegal drugs, and thus held that
and
regulated
drugs,
instruments,
court ratiocinated:
92
xxxx
Article III, Section 2 of the Philippine Constitution
provides:
Section 2. The right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures of whatever
nature and for any purpose shall be
inviolable, and no search warrant or
warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
probable cause to be determined
personally
by
the
judge
after
examination under oath or affirmation of
the complainant and the witnesses he
may produce, and particularly describing
the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized.
93
5. Customs search;
Emergency
ground
of
suspicion
supported
by
circumstances
94
(b) When an
offense has just been
committed and he has
probable
cause
to
believe
based
on
personal knowledge of
facts or circumstances
that the person to be
arrested has committed
it; and
board the vehicle before the same left for its destination.
It is well to remember that on October 26, 2005,
the night before appellants arrest, the police received
information that marijuana was to be transported from
Barangay Balbalayang, and had set up a checkpoint
around the area to intercept the suspects. At dawn of
October 27, 2005, PO2 Pallayoc met the secret agent
In
cases
falling
under
paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the
person arrested 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.[24]
provides:
95
appellants
possession
of
the
to give him the bags he had left with them, and not to
[26]
without
legal
authority,
is
punishable
under
the
articles.
crimes mala
prohibita. Laws
prohibita condemn
behavior
defining
directed
crimes mala
not
against
96
of
marijuana
fruiting
Pallayoc
(a)
The
apprehending
officer/team
having
initial
custody
and
control of the drugs
shall, immediately after
seizure
and
confiscation, physically
inventory
and
photograph the same in
the presence of the
accused or the person/s
from whom such items
were confiscated and/or
seized,
or
his/her
representative
or
counsel,
a
representative from the
media
and
the
Department of Justice
(DOJ), and any elected
public official who shall
97
to
appellants
claim,
the
of custody
Present:
CARPIO, J.,Ch
NACHURA,
PERALTA,
ABAD, and
MENDOZA, JJ
ARNOLD MARTINEZ Y
ANGELES, EDGAR DIZON
Y FERRER, REZIN MARTINEZ
Y CAROLINO, and RAFAEL
GONZALES Y CUNANAN,
Accused-Appellants.
Promulgated:
December 13,
X
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
Meetings.
The Facts
sum,
the
prosecution
successfully
established
SO ORDERED.
SECOND DIVISION
9165.[3]
98
shabu.
demurrer to evidence.
WHEREFORE,
premises
considered,
judgment
is
hereby
rendered finding accused ARNOLD
MARTINEZ y Angeles, EDGAR DIZON y
Ferrer, REZIN MARTINEZ y Carolino,
and RAFAEL GONZALES y Cunanan
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Possession of Dangerous
Drugs During Parties, Social Gatherings
or Meetings defined and penalized
under Section 13 in relation to Section
11, Article II of Republic Act 9165, and
each of them is sentenced to suffer the
penalty of life imprisonment and to pay
the fine in the amount of P500,000.00,
and to pay the cost of suit.
house,
they
saw
accused
Gonzales, Arnold
Martinez) in
room. The
four
were
SO ORDERED.[4]
Doria,
they
were
found
to
be
positive
for
methamphetamine hydrochloride.
99
After
an
assiduous
assessment
of
the
accused.
established.
Assignment of Errors
Rezin Martinez
1.
3.
4.
5.
of
Technicalities
justice,
should
rather
never
be
than
used
frustrate
to
it.
defeat
[9]
ignored.
The State cannot, in a manner contrary to its
constitutional guarantee, intrude into the persons of its
citizens as well as into their houses, papers and effects.
II
[10]
100
judgment
or
is
temporarily confined
while his case is
pending,
or
has
escaped while being
transferred from one
confinement
to
another.
In
cases
falling
under
paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the
person arrested 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.
customs search; (vi) stop and frisk; and (vii) exigent and
emergency circumstances.[12]
(a)
When,
in
his
presence, the person
to be arrested has
committed,
is
actually committing,
or is attempting to
commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has
just been committed
and he has probable
cause to believe
based on personal
knowledge of facts or
circumstances that
the person to be
arrested
has
committed it; and
101
xxx
xxx
as
police
suspicion
themselves
COURT: Answer.
of
introduced
officers,
ground
by
circumstances
102
Q: And your
informant
has
no
personal knowledge as to the
veracity of the alleged pot
session because he claimed
that he derived that information
from somebody else?
A: This is what he told us that somebody
told him that there was an
ongoing pot session, sir.
arrested. [20]
xxx
to the police:
103
86
of
R.A.
No.
9165,
and
Dangerous
Drug
Philippine
Drug
Enforcement
Agency (PDEA),
no
ensuing
likewise
duty.
search
as
result
thereof
is
consciously
[25]
possessed
the
dangerous
drug.
persons.
the law.[24]
Chain of Custody
As a method of authenticating
evidence, the chain of custody rule
104
[28]
105
c)
Several pcs of
used rolled
aluminum foil containing suspected
shabu residues.
d)
e)
b)
c)
Accordingly,
non-compliance
with
the
prescribed
testing, to wit:
SPECIMENS SUBMITTED:
accused, to wit:
a)
b)
106
CONFISCATION RECEIPT
Receipt
and
the
letter-request
for
laboratory
examination.
A review of the chain of custody indicates,
however, that the CA is mistaken.
First, the apprehending team failed to comply with
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. After seizure and
confiscation of the subject items, no physical inventory
was conducted in the presence of the accused, or their
representative or counsel, a representative from the
media and the DOJ, and any elected public official.
Thus, no inventory was prepared, signed, and provided
to the accused in the manner required by law. PO1
Azardon,
in
his
testimony,[36] admitted
that
no
Seizing Officer:
(sgd.) (sgd.)
PO1 Bernard B Azardon PO1 Alejandro Dela
Cruz
Affiant Affiant
Remarks:
Refused to Signed
Refused to Signed
Refused to Signed
Refused to Signed
Refused to Signed[34]
[Emphases supplied]
police
apprehending
witness stand.[35]
station
or
at
the
officer/team.
nearest
office
Whatever
of
the
effect
the
107
his Joint Affidavit with PO1 Dela Cruz does it appear that
officer
physical
from
immediately
conducting
the
[38]
People
v.
Dela
People v. Nazareno,
People,
[45]
Cruz,[41] People
[43]
v. Santos,
People v. Orteza,
[44]
Jr.,
Zarraga v.
[46]
[49]
the
subject
[52]
items
during
laboratory
108
did so.
[59]
People v. Sanchez,
[60]
[61]
the
DDB
states
that
4,
2006,
be
would
value
the
seizure
probative
and
Executive
merit
and
examination.
search
[69]
and
seizure
procedure
under
the
law.
[64]
109
procedure
must
be
recognized,
addressed
and
[70]
No. 9165, with regard to the charges that are filed by law
of
judgment
The
Court,
Branch
Other
SO ORDERED.
July 7, 2014
Trial
apparatus
Regional
instrument,
and
equipment,
accused
and
enteredACQUITTING the
another
Apparatus
ASIDE and
HC-NO.
Instrument,
CA-G.R.
Equipment,
in
of
Appeals
other
DECISION
110
BACKGROUND FACTS
The prosecution charged the appellant and Godofredo
Siochi with violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No.
9165 under two separate Informations, docketed as
Criminal Case Nos. Q-02-111200 and Q-02-112104.
The appellant and Siochi pleaded not guilty to the
charge on arraignment. Joint trial on the merits followed.
In its joint decision dated April 22, 2004, the RTC found
the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal
possession of shabu under Section 11, Article II of R.A.
No. 9165, and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment. It also ordered him to pay a P500,000.00
fine.
111
items inadmissible
PO3 CORBE:
A: Our informant first approached Renato Edano[,] and
they talked but when he (sic) called me, Renato run
(sic), sir.
Q: You said tinawag ka[,] who was that that call (sic)
you?
A: Team informant, sir.
xxxx
Q: How did she call you?
112
A: Yes, sir.
certainty
A: No, sir.
Q: Why did you not put your initial?
A: I was not able to put sir.26 (emphases ours)
A: No, sir.
113
SO ORDERED.
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 201100, February 04, 2015
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. MHODS USMAN Y GOGO, AccusedAppellant.
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
Assailed in the present notice of appeal is the
Decision1 dated 30 June 2011 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03942, which affirmed in
toto the Decision2 dated 13 August 2008 of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Manila, Branch 23 in Criminal Case
No. 03-222096, finding accused-appellant Mhods
Usman y Gogo (accused-appellant) guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of illegal sale ofshabu under Sec. 5,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R. A. No. 9165) or
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment
and ordering him to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
In an Information dated 22 December 2003,3 accusedappellant was charged with violation of Section 5, Art. II
of R. A. No. 9165, as
follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
114
115
III
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING
116
xxx
x
Q
When the confidential informant saw Mhods
Usman, what happened next?
A
He was approached by Mhods Usman and asked if
we are going to get.
Q
At the time that Mhods Usman approached the
confidential informant and asked him kung
kukuha, where were you then?
A
I stood beside the confidential informant.
Q
When Mhods Usman uttered the word (sic) kung
kukuha, what did you understand those words
(sic)?
A
This is the term used in buying shabu maam.
Q
What is the answer of the confidential informant
when asked by Mhods Usman?
A
I was pointed to and said HIM.
Q
So when you were pointed to by the confidential
informant, what was the reaction of Mhods
Usman?
A
I showed him the marked money and he took it.
Q
Once he took the money, what did he do next?
A
He turned slightly and get (sic) something from his
pocket and he passed the plastic sachet containing
undetermined amount of white crystalline
substance suspected to be shabu.
Q
What portion of the pocket of Mhods Usman did he
take the plastic sachet?
A
Right pocket, maam.
Q
After the plastic sachet was handed to you by
Usman what did you do next?
A
When he passed to me the plastic sachet
containing undetermined amount of white
crystalline substance, I immediately grabbed him
and introduced myself as police officer.
Q
After you grabbed him and introduced yourself as
police officer, what did you tell him?
A
I informed him of his constitutional rights and his
possible violation. 20
xxx
x
117
G.R
Pres
CAR
Cha
NAC
PER
ABA
MEN
- versus -
Prom
JACK RACHO y RAQUERO,
Appellant.
Aug
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
As to the fact that PO1 Sta. Maria was able to mark the
seized sachet only at the police station, inPeople v.
Loks,25 we held that the marking of the seized substance
immediately upon arrival at the police station qualified as
a compliance with the marking requirement. Such can
also be said here in light of the fact that the reason why
PO1 Sta. Maria was unable to immediately mark the
seized sachet was due to accused-appellants resistance
to arrest and, as at that time, he did not know accusedappellants name yet.
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
Regional
Court[2] (RTC)
Trial
Joint
[3]
of shabu. The
agent
later
reported
the
118
CONTRARY TO LAW.[8]
both charges.
investigation.[9]
July
8,
2004,
the
RTC
rendered
Joint
methamphetamine hydrochloride.[6]
Hence, the present appeal.
Appellant was charged in two separate Informations, one
for violation of Section 5 of R.A. 9165, for transporting or
specimen
immediately
after
seizure.
In
his
warrantless
search. He
questions
the
CONTRARY TO LAW.[7]
119
lawful.[16]
1.
and thus, were not ruled upon by the trial and appellate
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
courts.
It is well-settled that an appeal in a criminal case
opens the whole case for review. This Court is clothed
with ample authority to review matters, even those not
against him.
this
lapse,
coupled
with
his
active
lawful arrest.
120
PNB building where two females and a man got off. The
leaves.[28]
methamphetamine hydrochloride.
the
await
informant
that
appellant
would
arrive
circumstance
in
Tudtuds
arrival.
At
8:00
p.m.,
two
men
gives
warrantless arrest.
121
searches.[38]
poisonous
tree,
hence,
the
confiscated
item
is
Neither
did
the
arresting
officers
have
personal
had just alighted from the Gemini bus and was waiting
warrantless arrest.[40]
122
No.
00425
ASIDE. Appellant
Jack
Racho
notice.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 180661
DECISION
ABAD, J.:
This case is about a supposed warrantless arrest and a
subsequent search prompted by the police officers'
chance sighting through an ajar door of the accused
engaged in pot session.
123
THE COURT:
Q By the way, Mr. Cabutihan, when you followed your
companion towards the open door, how was the door
open? Was it totally open, or was it partially open?
124
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 199042
DECISION
SERENO, CJ:
SO ORDERED.10
The CA reviewed the appeal, which hinged on one issue,
viz:
THE COURT A QUOGRAVELY ERRED IN NOT
FINDING AS ILLEGAL THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS
WARRANTLESS ARREST AND SEARCH.11
RULING OF THE CA
CONTRARY TO LAW.
On 15 July 2004, the accused, duly assisted by counsel
de oficio, pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.5
PROSECUTIONS VERSION
125
City in Criminal Case No. 70854 finding the accusedappellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt is hereby
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.12
On 27 May 2011, petitioner filed a Motion for
Reconsideration,13 which the CA denied in a
Resolution14 dated 18 October 2011.
The circumstances that transpired between accusedappellant and the arresting officer show none of the
above that would make the warrantless arrest lawful.
Nevertheless, records reveal that accused-appellant
never objected to the irregularity of his arrest before his
arraignment. He pleaded not guilty upon arraignment.
He actively participated in the trial of the case. Thus, he
is considered as one who had properly and voluntarily
submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the trial court and
waived his right to question the validity of his arrest. 17
Petitioner claims that his arrest does not fall within the
purview of valid warrantless arrests, since it took place
on the day of the alleged shooting incident. Hence, to
"invite" him to the precinct without any warrant of arrest
was illegal. The evidence obtained is, consequently,
inadmissible. The Office of the Solicitor General filed its
Comment16 stating that the shabu confiscated from
petitioner was admissible in evidence against him; that
the search conducted on him was valid; and that he
cannot raise the issue regarding the apprehending
officers non-compliance with Section 21, Article II of
R.A. 9165 for the first time on appeal.
OUR RULING
We find the instant appeal meritorious.
126
127