Case Digest: People vs. Del Monte

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.

Read More

Case Digest: People vs. Rivera

G.R. No. 182347

People vs. Emilio Rivera Y CABLANG ALIAS `BOY,'

October 17, 2008

Facts:

Accused-appelant questioned his conviction on the ground that prosecution only relied on the testimony of one witness and that there had been a gap in the seizure and custody of the alleged evidence for failure of the operatives to take inventory of the same.

Ruling:

This Court takes pride in upholding a most fundamental constitutional right which is the right of an accused in criminal prosecutions to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, in order to justify the conviction of an accused, the prosecution must adduce that quantum of evidence sufficient to overcome this constitutional presumption of innocence.

The non-presentation as witnesses of other persons such as the other police officers forming a buy-bust team is not a crucial point against the prosecution since the matter of presentation of witnesses by the prosecution is not for the court to decide. It is the prosecution which has the discretion as to how to present its case and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses.  Moreover, the testimony of a single prosecution witness, if credible and positive and satisfies the court as to the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, is enough to sustain a conviction.

Truth is established not by the quantity of witnesses but by the quality of their testimonies. The testimony only needs to establish sufficiently: (1) the identity of the buyer, seller, object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof.

The categorical and convincing testimonies of the policemen, backed up by physical evidence, overcome the unsubstantiated claim of ill-motive by appellant. Accused-appellant's guilt having been established beyond reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence in his favor is overturned.

The Court sustained the conviction of accused-appellant.

Read More

Case Digest: People vs. Agulay

G.R. No. 181747

People vs. Narciso Lopez Agulay

September 26, 2008

Facts:

Lower Courts found accused appellant guilty of illegal sale and illegal possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

Accused-appellants questioned the means and method the police undertook the operation and the credibility of the prosecution witness.

Ruling:

The dissent maintains that the chain of custody rule "would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence x x x." This means that all persons who came into contact with the seized drugs should testify in court; otherwise, the unbroken chain of custody would not be established.

The Court disagree. Not all people who came into contact with the seized drugs are required to testify in court. 

The integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with. The accused-appellant in this case bears the burden to make some showing that the evidence was tampered or meddled with to overcome a presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers and a presumption that public officers properly discharged their duties.

After a thorough review of the records of the case, the court found that the chain of custody of the seized substance was not broken and that the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized in this case. The non-presentation of witnesses of other persons such as the evidence custodian and the officer on duty was not a crucial point against the prosecution.  Unless there was proof to the contrary, the entries in the documents are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated and they need not testify thereon.

The Court found accused appellant guilty of the illegal sale of drugs but not of the possession of dangerous drugs on account of the second and third sachets alleged to have been retrieved from him after the sale of the first since it could not be done so without being properly charged therewith.

Read More

Case Digest: People vs Dela Cruz; People vs. Dela Cruz

G.R. No. 181545

People vs. Mark Dela Cruz

October 08, 2008

Facts:

Appellant Mark Dela Cruz was found guilty of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 after he allegedly sold prohibited drugs to the poseur-buyer. The prohibited drugs were handed to appellant by companions identified to be an alias Amay and an alias Tabo. Appellant denied the charge and said that he was arrested after refusing to give information about Amay, whom the police were after. His testimony was corroborated by other witnesses.

Lower court gave weight to the testimony by the poseur-buyer and upheld the presumption of regularity in the operation conducted by the officers.

Appellant appealed, questioning the identity of the shabu allegedly confiscated from him in view of Section 21 (1) of RA No. 9165 (inventory of seized drugs) and Section 21 (3) of the same law(certification of the forensic laboratory examination results).

Ruling:

The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.

Citing jurisprudence, the failure of the police to comply with the procedure in the custody of the seized drugs raised doubt as to its origins.

The chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. TheCourt believed that the prosecution failed to clearly establish the chain of custody of the seized plastic sachets, containing shabu from the time they were first allegedly received until they were brought to the police investigator. There were no records to show that the procedural requirements in Section 21 were complied with.

The presumption of regularity cannot prevail over the constitutional right of presumption of evidence in view of the circumstances. “The presumption of regularity is merely just that--a mere presumption disputable by contrary proof and which when challenged by the evidence cannot be regarded as binding truth.”

The appellant was acquitted.

Read More

Case Digest: People vs. Dela Cruz; People vs. Carlos Dela Cruz

G.R. No 182348

People vs. Carlos Dela Cruz

November 20, 2008

Facts:

Accused- appellant Carlos Dela Cruz guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11(2) of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

Accused-appellant was arrested together with a certain Boy Bicol, who was subject to a warrant of arrest. The two were talking in a nipa hut hideout when the warrant of arrest against Boy Bicol was served. Having been on the scene, accused-appellant was also arrested. On the scene were shabu and firearms, found atop the table and in drawers.

Accused-appellant denied that the guns and drugs were in his possession. Accused-appellant was acquitted for illegal possession of firearms but was convicted for illegal possession of prohibited drugs.

Accused appellant  appealed, claiming that the presence of all the elements of the offense of possession of dangerous drug was not proved beyond reasonable doubt since both actual and constructive possessions were not proved. 

Ruling:

The Court reversed the lower court’s decision and acquitted the accused-appellant

In all these cases, the accused was held to be in constructive possession of illegal drugs since they were shown to enjoy dominion and control over the premises where these drugs were found.

Citing jurisprudence, accused-appellant couldn’t have been in constructive possession of the items since he is not he owner of the nipa hut subject to the warrant nor did he exercise dominion or control over the said hut.

Since accused-appellant was not in possession of the illegal drugs in Boy Bicol's nipa hut, his subsequent arrest was also invalid by virtue of Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure on warrantless arrest (Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.)

His arrest, independent of the buy-bust operation targeting Boy Bicol, was therefore not lawful as he was not proved to be committing any offense.

Read More

Case Digest: People vs.Ted Miguel Batoon and Melchor Miguel Batoon

G.R. No 184599

People vs.Ted Miguel Batoon and Melchor Miguel Batoon

November 24, 2010

Facts:

Accused-appellants Teddy Batoon and Melchor Batoon were found guilty of violating Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 after they sold a sachet to a poseur-buyer in a buy-operation and after 3 more sachets were found in their possession.

Teddy and Melchor appealed the decision, questioning the chain of custody over the alleged confiscated prohibited drugs and Melchor’s conviction for illegal possession of shabu. 

Ruling:

In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place; and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.

The Court held that the buy-bust operation was valid and that there had been no showing in the records that the chain of custody was broken.

For conviction of illegal possession of a prohibited drug to lie, the following elements must be established: (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. Although the three sachets containing shabu were found solely in the possession of Teddy, it was evident that Melchor had knowledge of its existence. Records regarding the transaction between the poseur-buyer, Teddy and melchor showed that the accused-appellants conspired in the illegal-business of drugs.

Proof beyond reasonable doubt against accused-appellants were held to have been successfully adduced. 

Read More

Case Digest: People vs. Sembrano

G.R. No. 185848

People Vs. Michael Castro Sembrano

August 16, 2010

Facts:

In a buy-bust operation and after a follow up search, Accused Appellant was arrested and charged with the violation of Section 5 (illegal sale) and Section 11, Article II (illegal possession) of R.A. 9165. He was then found guilty by the lower courts.

Accused-appellant appealed the lower court’s ruling, contending that the arrest made on him was illegal and thus the alleged evidence seized during such warrantless arrest shouldn’t have been admitted (‘fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine”). He further averred that he had been framed by the police officers.

Ruling:

The court held that the arrest made was legal. Appellant was arrested during an entrapment operation where he was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu. When an arrest is made during an entrapment operation, it is not required that a warrant be secured in line with the provisions of Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the Revised Rules of Court allowing warrantless arrests.

The contention of frame-up in the case at bar could not be looked upon by the Court with favor in light of straightforward and positive testimony of poseur-buyer identifying him as the seller of shabu. Moreover, the accused-appellant failed to prove that there had been ill-motive on the part of the officers to impute such crimes. Police officers are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary.

Court found the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt and was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) for illegal possession of 0.27 grams of shabu.  For illegal sale of drugs, regardless of quantity, he was sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00) PESOS; 

Read More

Case Digest: People vs. Noque

G.R. No. 175319

January 15, 2010

People vs. Joselito Noque y Gomez

Facts:

Appellant Joselito Noque Gomez was subject to a buybust operation, from which articles alleged to be methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) were seized. The seized articles were taken to the police station and submitted to the crime laboratory for examination to determine the chemical composition of the crystalline substance, which positively resulted to be ephedrine, a regulated drug.

Lower Courts prounounced appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the violation of Section Sections 15 and 16 of RA 6425 that define and penalize the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of regulated drugs.

Joselito appealed contending that the lower courts erred in convicting him despite the information, alleging methamphetamine hydrochloride as the seized item when the drug actually seized was ephedrine. Joselito contends that his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him.

Ruling:

The Court affirmed the lower courts decision that the designations and allegations in the information are for the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of regulated drugs. Ephedrine is a regulated drug, pursuant to Board Resolution No. 2, Series of 1988. Under Sections 4 and 5, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, an offense charged is necessarily included in the offense proved when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form part of those constituting the latter. Appellant’s right to be informed of the charges against him has not been violated because where an accused is charged with a specific crime, he is duly informed not only of such specific crime but also of lesser crimes or offenses included therein.

The Court also affirmed the CA’s decision regarding the penalty imposed on appellant in relation to the amount of shabu seized (in this case, 0.060 grams and 2.754 grams. It held that in the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances in this case, the penalty should be imposed in its medium period, ranging from six months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two years, four months and one day of prision correccional, as maximum.)

As to the violation of Section 16, Article III of RA 6425, as amended, penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of P500,000.00 was imposed on the appellant for the possession of 339.6075 grams  of prohibited drugs without license or prescription.

Read More