This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-02-18 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| In Criminal Case No. CBU-83576, Dela Peña asserted that no buy-bust operation was conducted because an illegal drug peddler will not sell shabu to a total stranger[30] in a public place which is open to view.[31] Contrary to Dela Peña's posture, peddlers of illicit drugs have been known with ever increasing casualness and recklessness to offer and sell their wares for the right price to anybody, be they strangers or not.[32] Moreover, drug pushing when done on a small-scale, like the instant case, belongs to those types of crimes that may be committed any time and at any place.[33] | |||||
|
2013-11-27 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| At the outset, it should be noted that appellant did not raise the issue of the alleged non-compliance with the aforementioned procedural rule when the case was still being heard in the trial court. In People v. Robelo,[10] we ruled that this assertion must be argued before the trial court and not on appeal for the first time, thus: 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. | |||||