Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Vs.
FACTS:
Prior to the search, the police team invited Barangay Kagawad Oscar Tabamo
of Barangay Maliwalo to witness the conduct of the search and seizure operation
in the appellants house. With Barangay Kagawad Tabamo, the police team
presented the search warrant to appellant and informed her of the purpose of
the search and her constitutional rights.
The plastic sachet was brought to the Tarlac Provincial Crime Laboratory
located at Tarlac Provincial Hospital for qualitative examination. The
examination conducted by Engr. Marcene G. Agala, the Forensic Chemist who tested
the white crystalline substance, yielded positive results for 0.055 gram of
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, a dangerous drug.
Appellant claims that the police officers framed her up and planted the
shabu inside her house because of her refusal to give them money.
ISSUE:
RULING:
No. The Court of Appeals ruled that the evidence for the prosecution fully
proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements necessary to successfully prosecute
a case for illegal possession of a regulated drug, namely, (a) the accused is
in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or a
regulated drug, (b) such possession is not authorized by law and (c) the accused
freely and consciously possessed said drug.
The original position of the accused which, in this petition, begins with
the contention of non-compliance with all the requisites of illegal possession
of dangerous drugs. We agree with the rulings of the trial court and the Court
of Appeals that there was indeed full satisfaction of the requisites for the
conviction of the accused.
In the case at hand, the so-called frame-up was virtually pure allegation
bereft of credible proof. The narration of the police officer who implemented
the search warrant, was found after trial and appellate review as the true
story. It is on firmer ground than the self-serving statement of the accused-
appellant of frame-up. The defense cannot solely rely upon the constitutional
presumption of innocence for, while it is constitutional, the presumption is
not conclusive. Notably, the accused-appellant herself stated in her brief
that no proof was proffered by the accused-appellant of the police officers
alleged ill motive.
[G.R. No. 144157. June 10, 2003]
Facts:
Issue:
Ruling:
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the accused for violation of
Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425.
Appellants claim of frame-up must also fail. For the officers to frame
him up, they must have known him prior to the incident. However, not a single
shred of evidence was shown to bolster this claim. Rather, what was established
was that Officer Impuerto became aware of appellant and his illegal trade only
at 10:00 a.m. of July 25, 1995, when he learned of the tip from the CI. The
informant even had to introduce Officer Impuerto to appellant and his companion
before the officer began to negotiate a deal with him. Appellant himself
admitted that he did not know the officers prior to this incident. There was,
therefore, no motive for the officers to frame him up. Without proof of motive
to falsely impute such a serious crime against appellant, the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duty and the findings of the trial
court on the credibility of witnesses shall prevail over his claim of having
been framed.
vs.
Facts:
On November 14, 2003, the RTC rendered a joint decision convicting Dexter
of the offenses charged.
Issue:
Ruling:
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the accused for violation of
Section 8, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6425.
Facts:
"That on or about 10:00 ooclock in the evening of the 18st day of January
2003, at Barangay 5, Poblacion, Municipality of Alabat, Province of Quezon,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above
named accused, without authority of law, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give away to a police officer who
acted as poseur buyer five (5) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets, each
containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, with a total weight of 0.24 gram, and
for which said accused received as payment four (4) marked P100 bills.
The trial court found that the prosecutions evidence had proven
appellants guilt beyond reasonable doubt and convicted him. The decision of
the trial court was affirmed by the appellate court.
Issue:
Ruling:
In this case, the prosecution failed to clearly demonstrate how the seized
items were handled from the time they were taken from appellant to the moment
they were presented as evidence in court. Although PO3 Angulo testified that
PO1 Gaya, the poseur-buyer, surrendered the same to their chief of police at
the police station and that he (PO3 Angulo) marked the same, as well as the
other plastic sachets of shabu which their search on appellant yielded, it was
not clear, however, when the markings were made: whether it was done before or
after PO1 Gaya turned over the sold shabu to their chief of police.
Facts:
That on or about the 3rd day of March 2003, in the Quezon City,
Philippines, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law to sell,
dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous drug, did then and
there, willfully and unlawfully sell, dispense, deliver, transport, distribute
or act as broker in the said transaction, six point forty one (6.41) grams of
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
In a Decision dated 16 July 2004, the RTC decreed that the accused was
guilty without reasonable doubt since the fact of the illegal sale of a dangerous
drug, methylamphetamine hydrochloride, was sufficiently and indisputably
established by the prosecution.
The Court of Appeals DISMISSED the appeal and the assailed Decision
AFFIRMED in toto.
Issue:
Ruling: