G.R. No. 179940,
April 23, 2008
People vs. NORBERTO DEL MONTE Y GAPAY alias
“OBET”
Facts:
Accused-appellant questioned his conviction,
contending that the evidence against him should have been rendered inadmissible
for failure to comply with Section 21 of RA 9165.
Ruling:
Accused-appellants claim that police failed to
take pictures of him with the evidence and that the police, who had initial
custody, failed to conduct physical inventory was raised only during appeal.
The court held that it is already late for
accused-appellant to do this.
The law excuses
non-compliance under justifiable grounds. However, whatever justifiable
grounds may excuse the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation in
this case from complying with Section 21 will remain unknown, because appellant
did not question during trial the safekeeping of the items seized from
him. Indeed, the police officers'
alleged violations of
Sections 21 and 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 were not raised before the trial court but were instead raised for the
first time on appeal. In no instance did appellant least intimate at the
trial court that there were lapses in the safekeeping of seized items that
affected their integrity and evidentiary value. Objection to evidence
cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court
to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of
objection. Without such objection he cannot raise the question for the
first time on appeal.
The Court also
added that, non-compliance with Section 21 of said law, particularly the making
of the inventory and the photographing of the drugs confiscated and/or seized,
will not render the drugs inadmissible in evidence.
Afterall,
all the elements necessary to prosecute sale of illegal drugs had been
established. The prosecution
clearly showed that the sale of the drugs actually happened and that the shabu subject
of the sale was brought and identified in court.
The court
sustained accused-appellant’s conviction.
0 comments:
Post a Comment