This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2016-01-11 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to induce a cautious man to believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense charged. It refers to the existence of such facts and circumstances that can lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed, and that the items, articles or objects sought in connection with said offense or subject to seizure and destruction by law are in the place to be searched.[135] | |||||
|
2015-02-16 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| It is well to note that the records of the case are bereft of evidence that appellant, during trial, interposed any objection to the non-marking of the seized items in his presence and the lack of information on the whereabouts of the shabu after it was examined by P/Insp. Calabocal. While he questioned the chain of custody before the CA, the alleged defects appellant is now alluding to were not among those he raised on appeal. The defects he raised before the CA were limited to the alleged lack of physical inventory, non-taking of photographs of the seized items, and the supposed failure of the police officers to mark the sachets of shabu at the crime scene. But even then, it was already too late in the day for appellant to have raised the same at that point since he should have done so early on before the RTC.[19] It bears stressing that the Court has already brushed aside an accused's belated contention that the illegal drugs confiscated from his person is inadmissible for failure of the arresting officers to comply with Section 21 of R.A. 9165.[20] This is considering that "[w]hatever justifiable grounds may excuse the police officers from literally complying with Section 21 will remain unknown, because [appellant] did not question during trial the safekeeping of the items seized from him. 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 an objection. Without such objection, he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal."[21] Besides and as already mentioned, the CA has already concluded that the identity of the seized drugs was established by the prosecution and its integrity preserved, viz.: Ultimately, We find that the prosecution convincingly proved that the police operatives indeed complied with the required unbroken chain in the custody of the subject illegal drugs, viz: a.) beginning from the lawful buy-bust operation undertaken by the police operatives on 06 June 2003 and the recovery of the subject illegal drugs as well as the marked money resulting from the Appellant's valid warrantless search and seizure; b.) upon seizure of the one hundred (Php100) pesos with serial number #JK623663 used as marked money and the subject drugs by PO1 ROSALES, said specimens remained in his possession until they were turned over to the police investigator PO2 HIPOLITO upon reaching the police headquarters; c.) upon receipt of the subject drugs and buy-bust money, PO2 HIPOLITO marked the specimens "JGA-1" (0.05 gram),"JGA-2"(0.04 gram) and "JGA-3"(0.05 gram) which stands for the Appellant's initials; d.) a Laboratory Examination Request was then prepared by Chief Police Inspector CESAR GONZALES CRUZ (Chief P/Insp. CRUZ) addressed to the Chief PNP, NPD Crime Laboratory Office, Samson Road, Caloocan City, requesting for the examination of the three (3) pieces of small plastic transparent [heat-sealed] sachets containing white crystalline substance that were confiscated from the Appellant; e.) upon receipt of the subject drugs, the same [were] examined by forensic chemist P/Insp. CALABOCAL who found [them] to be positive for shabu; f.) thereafter, Chief P/Insp. CRUZ prepared a Referral Slip dated 06 June 2003 addressed to the City Prosecutor of Caloocan presenting as evidence, inter alia, the three (3) plastic sachets confiscated from the Appellant, the Laboratory Examination Report dated 06 June 2003 and the one hundred (Php100) pesos used as marked money; g.) the three (3) plastic sachets were turned over to the custody of the prosecutor which PO1 ROSALES identified on direct examination as the subject drugs sold and confiscated from Appellant during the buy-bust operation; h.) the subject specimens were then marked as Exhibits "C-1", C-2" and "C-3" for the prosecution and was finally surrendered to the court a quo when formally offered as evidence by the prosecution on 19 August 2004.[22] | |||||
|
2014-11-17 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The elements that must be established in the successful prosecution of a dangerous drugs case are: "(1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug."[15] "Mere possession x x x of a prohibited drug, without legal authority, is punishable under [RA9165]."[16] | |||||
|
2014-11-12 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| With regard to the non-compliance by the police officers with Section 21 of the Implementing Rules of RA 9165 as alleged by appellant in his Supplemental Brief, particularly the lack of physical inventory of the seized specimen and the non-taking of photograph thereof, the Court notes that appellant raised the same only in this appeal. The records of the case is bereft of any showing that appellant objected before the RTC regarding the seizure and safekeeping of the shabu seized from him on account of the failure of the police officers to maintain an unbroken chain of custody of the said drugs. The only time that appellant questioned the chain of custody was before the CA but not on the ground of lack of physical inventory or non-taking of photograph, but on the alleged gap between the time of confiscation of the specimen and the time of its submission to the PNP Crime Laboratory. But even then, it was already too late in the day for appellant to do so. Appellant should have raised the said issue before the trial court.[16] In similar cases, the Court brushed aside the accused's belated contention that the illegal drugs confiscated from his person were inadmissible because the arresting officers failed to comply with Section 21 of RA 9165.[17] "Whatever justifiable grounds may excuse the police officers from literally complying with Section 21 will remain unknown, because [appellant] did not question during trial the safekeeping of the items seized from him. 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 an objection. Without such objection, he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal.[18] Besides and as already mentioned, the CA had already aptly concluded that the identity of the seized drugs was established by the prosecution and its integrity preserved, viz: Record show[s] that after the arrest, PO1 Palconit immediately marked the sachets of shabu with [appellant's] initials, requested a laboratory examination of the confiscated substance and himself brought the sachets of shabu on the same day to the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory. Thus, the identity of the drugs had been duly preserved and established by the prosecution. Besides, 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. [Appellant] 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. This is also bolstered by the defense's admission of the existence, due execution and genuineness of the request for laboratory examination, the Chemistry Report and specimens submitted.[19] | |||||
|
2013-02-06 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Mere possession of a prohibited drug, without legal authority, is punishable under Republic Act No. 9165.[34] Since Manalao failed to adduce any evidence showing that he had legal authority to possess the seized drugs, then he was correctly charged with its illegal possession. | |||||
|
2010-11-15 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Undoubtedly, the case at bar falls under Sec. 5(a) of Rule 113, that is, when the person to be arrested is actually committing an offense, the peace officer may arrest him even without a warrant. However, a warrantless arrest must still be preceded by the existence of probable cause. Probable cause is defined as "a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to induce a cautious man to believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense charged." [36] | |||||