karl case

8/11/2019 karl case

1/34

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURTManila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 164015 : February 26 200!

R"MON ". "#$ERT Petitioner %&. T'E S"NDIG"N$"("N

a)* T'E PEOP#E OF T'E P'I#IPPINES Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

C"RPIOJ.:

T+e Ca&e

This is a petition for certiorari[1]of the Resolutions dated 10 February

2004[2]and 3 May 2004[3]of the Sandianbayan! The 10 February 2004 Resolution

ranted the prosecutions Motion to "d#it the "#ended $nfor#ation! The 3 May

2004 Resolution denied the Motion For Reconsideration of petitioner Ra#on "!

"lbert %petitioner&! chanrobles'irtualla(library

T+e Fa,-&

)n 24 March 1***+ the Special Prosecution )fficer %SP)& $$ of the )ffice of

the )#buds#an for Mindanao chared petitioner and his co,accused+ Fa'io -!

Sayson and "rturo S! "su#brado+ before the Sandianbayan (ith 'iolation of

Section 3%e& of Republic "ct .o! 301* %R" 301*& or the "nti,/raft and orrupt
http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn1http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn2http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn3http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn2http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn3http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn1

8/11/2019 karl case

2/34

Practices "ct in ri#inal ase .o! 2231! The $nfor#ation

alleed chanrobles'irtualla(library

The undersined Special Prosecution )fficer $$ of the )ffice of

the )#buds#an for Mindanao hereby accuses R"M). "! "5RT+F"6$) -! S"7S).+ and "RT8R) S! "S8MR"-) for %sic& 'iolation ofSection 3%e& R!"! 301*+ as a#ended+ co##itted as

follo(s chanrobles'irtualla(library

That in %sic& or about May 1**0 and so#eti#e prior

or subse9uent thereto+ in the ity of -a'ao+ Philippines

and (ithin the :urisdiction of this ;onorable ourt+ accused

R"M). "! "5RT+ a public officer+ bein then thePresident of the .ational ;o#e Mortae and Finance

orporation+ occupyin the said position (ith a salary

rade abo'e 2 -eclaration .os! -,3,1,

8/11/2019 karl case

3/34

)n 2? March 1***+ a ;old -eparture )rder (as issued by the Sandianbayan

aainst petitioner and his co,accused! chanrobles'irtualla(library

)n 2 May 1***+ petitioner filed a Motion to -is#iss ri#inal ase .o! 2231 on

the follo(in rounds %1& the accused %petitioner& (as denied due process of la(A

%2& the )ffice of the )#buds#an did not ac9uire :urisdiction o'er the person of the

accusedA %3& the constitutional rihts of the accused to a speedy disposition of

cases and to a speedy trial (ere 'iolatedA and %4& the resolution dated 2? February

1*** findin the accused uilty of 'iolation of Section 3%e& of R" 301* is not

supported by e'idence![]chanrobles'irtualla(library

)n 1B -ece#ber 2000+ pendin the resolution of the Motion to -is#iss+ petitioner

filed a Motion to ift ;old -eparture )rder and to be "llo(ed to Tra'el! The

prosecution did not ob:ect to the latter #otion on the condition that petitioner

(ould be pro'isionally arrained![?])n 12 March 2001+ petitioner filed an 8rent

Motion to "#end Motion to ift ;old -eparture )rder and to be "llo(ed to

Tra'el! The follo(in day+ or on 13 March 2001+ the Sandianbayan arrained

petitioner (ho entered a plea of not uilty! $n the Resolution dated 1? "pril 2001+

the Sandianbayan ranted petitioners 8rent Motion to "#end Motion to ift ;old

-eparture )rder and to be "llo(ed to Tra'el! chanrobles'irtualla(library

)n 2? .o'e#ber 2001+ the Sandianbayan denied petitioners Motion to -is#iss

and ordered the prosecution to conduct a rein'estiation of the case (ith respect to

petitioner! $n a Me#orandu# dated ? Canuary 2003+ the SP) (ho conducted the

rein'estiation reco##ended to the )#buds#an that the indict#ent aainst

petitioner be re'ersed for lac= of probable cause!;o(e'er+ the )#buds#an+ in an

)rder dated 10 March 2003+ disappro'ed the Me#orandu# and directed the )ffice

of the Special Prosecutor to proceed (ith the prosecution of the cri#inal

case!Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the )rder of the

)#buds#an! chanrobles'irtualla(library

$n a Resolution pro#ulated on 1? May 2003+ the Sandianbayan scheduled the

arrain#ent of petitioner on 24 Culy 2003! ;o(e'er+ in 'ie( of the pendin #otion
http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn5http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn6http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn5http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn6

8/11/2019 karl case

4/34

for reconsideration of the order of the )#buds#an+ the arrain#ent (as reset to 2

)ctober 2003! chanrobles'irtualla(library

$n a Manifestation dated 24 Septe#ber 2003+ the SP) infor#ed the Sandianbayan

of the )#buds#ans denial of petitioners #otion for reconsideration! )n e'en date+

the prosecution filed an 5>,Parte Motion to "d#it "#ended $nfor#ation! -urin the

2 )ctober 2003 hearin+ this e>,parte #otion (as (ithdra(n by the prosecution

(ith the intention of filin a Motion for ea'e to "d#it "#ended $nfor#ation! The

scheduled arrain#ent of petitioner (as reset to 1 -ece#ber 2003!

[

8/11/2019 karl case

5/34

to the .;MF (hen in truth and in fact+ as accused (ell

=ne(+ the t(o pieces of real property co'ered byertificate of Titles .os! T,11*20 and T,11*21 are

aricultural land+ and by reason of accuseds

#isrepresentation+ the .;MF released the a#ount

of P4+3+400!00 (hich is hiher than the loanablea#ount the land could co##and bein aricultural+ thus

causin undue in:ury to the

o'ern#ent! chanrobles'irtualla(library

).TR"R7 T) "@![B]chanrobles'irtualla(library

Petitioner opposed the #otion+ allein that the a#end#ent #ade on the

infor#ation is substantial and+ therefore+ not allo(ed after

arrain#ent! chanrobles'irtualla(library

T+e Ru/) o3 -+e Sa)*/a)baya)

$n its Resolution of 10 February 2004+[*]the Sandianbayan ranted the

prosecutions Motion to "d#it "#ended $nfor#ation! "t the outset+

the Sandianbayan e>plained that ross nelect of duty (hich falls under Section

3%f& of R" 301* is different fro# ross ine>cusable nelience under Section 3%e&+and held thus chanrobles'irtualla(library

chanrobles'irtualla(library

$n an infor#ation allein ross nelect of duty+ it is not are9uire#ent that such nelect or refusal causes undue in:ury

co#pared to an infor#ation allein ross ine>cusable nelience

(here undue in:ury is a constituti'e ele#ent! " chane to this effect

constitutes substantial a#end#ent considerin that the possibledefense of the accused #ay di'ert fro# the one oriinally

intended! chanrobles'irtualla(library


$t #ay be considered ho(e'er+ that there are three #odes by

(hich the offense for 6iolation of Section 3%e& #ay be co##itted in

any of the follo(in chanrobles'irtualla(library

1! Throuh e'ident bad faithA chanrobles'irtualla(library

8/11/2019 karl case

6/34

2! Throuh #anifest partialityA chanrobles'irtualla(library

3! Throuh ross ine>cusable nelience! chanrobles'irtualla(library

Proof of the e>istence of any of these #odes in connection (iththe prohibited acts under said section of the la( should suffice to(arrant con'iction![10]chanrobles'irtualla(library

;o(e'er+ the Sandianbayan also held that e'en rantin that the a#end#ent of

the infor#ation be for#al or substantial+ the prosecution could still effect the sa#e

in the e'ent that the accused had not yet underone a per#anent

arrain#ent! "nd since the arrain#ent of petitioner on 13 March 2001 (as #erelypro'isional+ then the prosecution #ay still a#end the infor#ation either in for# or

in substance! chanrobles'irtualla(library

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration+ (hich (as denied by the

Sandianbayan in its Resolution of 3 May 2004! ;ence this

petition! chanrobles'irtualla(library

T+e I&&ue&

The issues raised in this petition are chanrobles'irtualla(library

1! @;5T;5R T;5 S".-$/"."7". /R"657 "8S5- $TS

-$SR5T$). "M)8.T$./ T) "D )R 5E5SS )F C8R$S-$T$). $.

"-M$TT$./ T;5 "M5.-5- $.F)RM"T$).A ".- chanrobles'irtualla(library

2! @;5T;5R T;5 S".-$/"."7". /R"657 "8S5- $TS-$SR5T$). "M)8.T$./ T) "D )R 5E5SS )F C8R$S-$T$). $.

F8RT;5R PR)55-$./ @$T; T;5 "S5 -5SP$T5 T;5 6$)"T$). )F

T;5 R$/;T )F T;5 "8S5- T) " SP55-7 TR$"! chanrobles'irtualla(library
http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn10http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn10

8/11/2019 karl case

7/34

T+e Ru/) o3 -+e Cour-

The petition has no #erit! chanrobles'irtualla(library

On Whether the Sandiganbayan

Should Admit the Amended Information

Section 14 of Rule 110 of the Re'ised Rules of ri#inal Procedure

pro'ides chanrobles'irtualla(library

Sec! 14!Amendment or Substitution.-- " co#plaint or infor#ation #ay

be a#ended+ in for# or in substance+ (ithout lea'e of court+ at any

ti#e before the accused enters his plea! "fter the plea and durin thetrial+ a for#al a#end#ent #ay only be #ade (ith lea'e of court and

(hen it can be done (ithout causin pre:udice to the rihts of the

accused! chanrobles'irtualla(library

> > > chanrobles'irtualla(library


Petitioner contends that under the abo'e section+ only a for#al a#end#ent of the

infor#ation #ay be #ade after a plea! The rule does not distinuish bet(een a plea

#ade durin a pro'isional or a per#anent arrain#ent! Since petitioner already

entered a plea of not uilty durin the 13 March 2001 arrain#ent+ then the

infor#ation #ay be a#ended only in for#! chanrobles'irtualla(library

"n arrain#ent is that stae (here in the #ode and #anner re9uired by the rules+

an accused+ for the first ti#e+ is ranted the opportunity to =no( the precise chare

that confronts hi#![11]The accused is for#ally infor#ed of the chares aainst hi#+

to (hich he enters a plea of uilty or not uilty! "s an indispensable re9uire#ent of

due process+ an arrain#ent cannot be rearded lihtly or brushed aside

pere#ptorily![12]chanrobles'irtualla(library

8/11/2019 karl case

8/34

The practice of the Sandianbayan of conductin pro'isional or conditional

arrain#ents is not sanctioned by the Re'ised $nternal Rules of the

Sandianbayan or by the reular Rules of ourt![13];o(e'er+ in People v. Espinosa,

[14]

this ourt tanentially reconied such practice+ pro'ided that the alleedconditions attached thereto should be un#ista=able+ e>press+ infor#ed and

enlihtened! Moreo'er+ the conditions #ust be e>pressly stated in the )rder

disposin of the arrain#entA other(ise+ the arrain#ent should be dee#ed si#ple

and unconditional![1]chanrobles'irtualla(library

$n the present case+ the arrain#ent of petitioner is reflected in the Minutes of the

Sandianbayan Proceedins dated 13 March 2001 (hich #erely states that the

[a]ccused (hen arrained entered a plea of not uilty! The Motion to Tra'el isranted sub:ect to the usual ter#s and conditions i#posed on accused persons

tra'ellin %sic& abroad![1?]$n the Resolution of 1? "pril 2001+ [1cusable

nelience is a substantial a#end#ent of the $nfor#ation (hich is pre:udicial to his

rihts! ;e asserts that under the a#ended infor#ation+ he has to present e'idence

that he did not act (ith ross ine>cusable nelience+ e'idence he (as not re9uired

to present under the oriinal infor#ation! To bolster his aru#ent+ petitioner refers

to the 10 February 2004 Resolution of the Sandianbayan (hich ruled that the
http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn13http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn14http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn15http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn16http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn17http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn13http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn14http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn15http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn16http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn17

8/11/2019 karl case

9/34

chane constitutes substantial a#end#ent considerin that the possible defense of

the accused #ay di'ert fro# the one oriinally intended![1B]chanrobles'irtualla(library

@e are not con'inced! chanrobles'irtualla(library

Petitioner is chared (ith 'iolation of Section 3%e& of R" 301* (hich pro'ides as

follo(s chanrobles'irtualla(library

S5! 3! orrupt practices of public officers! $n addition to acts or

o#issions of public officers already penalied by e>istin la(+ the

follo(in shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are

hereby declared to be unla(ful chanrobles'irtualla(library

> > > chanrobles'irtualla(library

%e& ausin any undue in:ury to any party+ includin the /o'ern#ent+or i'in any pri'ate party any un(arranted benefits+ ad'antae or

preference in the dischare of his official+ ad#inistrati'e or :udicial

functions throuh #anifest partiality+ e'ident bad faith or ross

ine>cusable nelience! This pro'ision shall apply to officersande#ployees of offices or o'ern#ent corporations chared (ith the

rant of licenses or per#its or other concessions!

This cri#e has the follo(in essential ele#ents[1*]

1! The accused #ust be a public officer discharin ad#inistrati'e+

:udicial or official functionsA

2! ;e #ust ha'e acted (ith #anifest partiality+ e'ident bad faith orross ine>cusable nelienceA and

3! ;is action caused any undue in:ury to any party+ includin theo'ern#ent+ or a'e any pri'ate party un(arranted benefits+

ad'antae or preference in the dischare of his

functions! chanrobles'irtualla(library


The second ele#ent pro'ides the different #odes by (hich the cri#e #ay be

co##itted+ that is+ throuh #anifest partiality+ e'ident bad faith+ or ross

8/11/2019 karl case

10/34

ine>cusable nelience![20]$n Uriarte v. People+[21]this ourt e>plained that Section

3%e& of R" 301* #ay be co##itted either by dolo,as (hen the accused acted (ith

e'ident bad faith or #anifest partiality+ or by culpa+as (hen the accused co##itted

ross ine>cusable nelience! There is #anifest partiality (hen there is a clear+

notorious+ or plain inclination or predilection to fa'or one side or person rather than

another![22]5'ident bad faith connotes not only bad :ud#ent but also palpably and

patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do #oral obli9uity or conscious

(rondoin for so#e per'erse #oti'e or ill (ill! [23]5'ident bad faith conte#plates a

state of #ind affir#ati'ely operatin (ith furti'e desin or (ith so#e #oti'e or

self,interest or ill (ill or for ulterior purposes! [24]G/ross ine>cusable nelienceG

refers to nelience characteried by the (ant of e'en the slihtest care+ actin or

o#ittin to act in a situation (here there is a duty to act+ not inad'ertently but

(illfully and intentionally+ (ith conscious indifference to conse9uences insofar asother persons #ay be affected![2]


The oriinal infor#ation filed aainst petitioner alleed that he acted (ith e'ident

bad faith and #anifest partiality and or %sic& ross nelect of duty! The a#ended

infor#ation+ on the other hand+ allees that petitioner acted (ith e'ident bad faith

and #anifest partiality andHor ross ine>cusable nelience! S/y -+e

ae)*e)- &ee& -o rea,e ro&& )ee,- o3 *u-y 7/-+ ro&& /)e,u&abe

)e/e),e./i'en that these t(o phrases fall under different pararaphs of R"

301*specifically+ ross nelect of duty is under Section 3%f& (hile ross ine>cusable

nelience is under Section 3%e& of the statutethe 9uestion re#ains (hether or not

the a#end#ent is substantial and pre:udicial to the rihts of

petitioner! chanrobles'irtualla(library

The test as to (hen the rihts of an accused are pre:udiced by the a#end#ent of a

co#plaint or infor#ation is (hen a defense under the co#plaint or infor#ation+ as

it oriinally stood+ (ould no loner be a'ailable after the a#end#ent is #ade+ and

(hen any e'idence the accused #iht ha'e+ (ould be inapplicable to the co#plaint

or infor#ation as a#ended![2?])n the other hand+ an a#end#ent (hich #erely

states (ith additional precision so#ethin (hich is already contained in the oriinal

infor#ation and (hich+ therefore+ adds nothin essential for con'iction for the cri#e
http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn20http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn21http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn22http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn22http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn23http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn24http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn25http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn26http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn20http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn21http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn22http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn23http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn24http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn25http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn26

8/11/2019 karl case

11/34

chared is an a#end#ent to for# that can be #ade at anyti#e!

[2clusi'ely charin the co##issionof a (illful offense upon the theory that the reater includes the lesser

offense! Thus+ (e hold that the inclusion of ross ine>cusable nelience in the

$nfor#ation+ (hich #erely allees #anifest partiality and e'ident bad faith as

#odalities in the co##ission of the cri#e under Section 3%e& of R" 301*+ is an

a#end#ent in for#! chanrobles'irtualla(library


On Whether Petitioners

Right to a Speedy Trial was Violated
http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn27http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn28http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn29http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn30http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn31http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn27http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn28http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn29http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn30http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn31

8/11/2019 karl case

12/34

8/11/2019 karl case

13/34

rein'estiation of the case as to petitioner (as in order! "lthouh the

rein'estiation inad'ertently resulted to further delay in the proceedins+ this

process could not ha'e been dispensed (ith as it (as done for the protection of the

rihts of petitioner hi#self! $t is (ell,settled that althouh the conduct of an

in'estiation #ay hold bac= the proress of a case+ it is necessary so that the

accusedIs riht (ill not be co#pro#ised or sacrificed at the altar of e>pediency!

[34]The succeedin e'ents appear to be parts of a 'alid and reular course of :udicial

proceedins not attended by delays (hich can be considered 'e>atious+ capricious+

oppressi'e+ or un:ustified! ;ence+ petitioners contention of 'iolation of his riht to a

speedy trial #ust fail! chanrobles'irtualla(library

8'EREFORE+ (e DISMISSthe petition! @e "FFIRMthe Resolutions dated 10February 2004 and 3 May 2004 of the Sandianbayan in ri#inal ase .o!

2231! chanrobles'irtualla(library

SO ORDERED! chanrobles'irtualla(library

"NTONIO T. C"RPIO

"ssociate Custice

8E CONCUR

RE(N"TO S. PUNO

hief Custice

hairperson

REN"TO C. CORON" TERESIT" 9. #EON"RDODE C"STRO

"ssociate Custice "ssociate Custice

"RTURO D. $RION

"ssociate Custice

CERTIFIC"TION
http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn34http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/feb2009/164015.php#_ftn34

8/11/2019 karl case

14/34

Pursuant to Section 13+ "rticle 6$$$ of the onstitution+ $ certify that the conclusions

in the abo'e -ecision had been reached in consultation before the case (as

assined to the (riter of the opinion of the ourts -i'ision!

RE(N"TO S. PUNO

hief Custice chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

lawphil

Today is Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Search

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

SEO!" "#$#S#O!

R. No. 173480 February 25, 2009

OPE OF T!E P!""PP"NES,Plaintiff%&ppellee,

"# G$RC"$ y RU"#,&ccused%&ppellant'
http://www.lawphil.net/legalink/legalink.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/international/interlaw.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/executive/executive.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/courts/judiciar.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/judjuris.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/statutes/statutes.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/consti/constitu.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/index.html

8/11/2019 karl case

15/34

" E # S # O !

"ON, J.:

review in this "ecision the conviction of accused%appellant Rui) *arcia y Rui) +Rui) by the ourt of &ppealsts "ecision of May 10, 200-1for violation of Section ., &rticle ## of Republic &ct +R'&' !o' /1-. or theprehensive "anerous "rus &ct of 2002' The assailed & decision fully affired the decision of the Reioal ourt +RT,2ranch 32, Malabon ity'

) was forally chared and pleaded 4not uilty4 under an #nforation that reads5

at on or about the 23th day of 6ebruary 2007, in the Municipality of !avotas, Metro Manila, Philippines, and w8urisdiction of this 9onorable ourt, the above%naed accused, bein a private person, and without authority, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously sell and deliver for consideration in the aount of P2

poseur%buyer one +1 piece of printed paper with ar:ins ;R*R%1< containin the followin5 one +1 sall briced suspected Mari8uana fruitin tops with a net weiht 11'02 ra=s> and Thirteen +17 sall white paper=s> wi

r:ins ;R*R%RP#< throuh ;R*R%RP17,< respectively, which substance, when sub8ected to cheistry e?ainatve positive result for Mari8uana, a danerous dru'7

he pre%trial conference that followed, his counsel aditted the followin5 +1 the identity of Rui) as the accusecase@ +2 the 8urisdiction of the RT@ and +7 Rui)< lac: of authority to possess or sell shabu' AThe defense

unsel also anifested that adissions could be ade in the course of the trial concernin the anner and nattestiony of the forensic cheist'.lawphil.net

e prosecution presented a sinle witness, PO1 Sauel *arcia +PO1 *arcia, who, as poseur%buyer, testified t)< arrest was ade pursuant to a leitiate buy%bust operation where Rui) sold hi ari8uana' The partiespensed with the testiony of the forensic cheist, Besse &badilla "ela Rosa, after they entered into stipulatio

ncernin the anner and nature of his testiony'-

e prosecution also subitted the followin evidence5

E?hibit 4&4 % #!6OREP dated 6ebruary 3, 2007 written by Police SeniorSuperintendent Oscar 6' $alen)uela@

E?hibit 44 % the "ispatch Order dated 6ebruary 23, 2007@

E?hibit 4%14and 4%24

% the photocopy of the recovered ar:ed oney@

E?hibit 4"4 % the Pre%Operation Report dated 6ebruary 23, 2007 prepared by

PO2 *eoffrey 9uertas@

E?hibit 4E4 % the Sinupaan Salaysay of PO1Sauel Sonny *arcia@

E?hibit 464 % the corpus delicti@

E?hibit 494 % the ReCuest for Daboratory E?aination dated 6ebruary 2,2007 subitted by 6erdinand Davadia aloa, Police #nspectorhief S"EF and@
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#fnt6

8/11/2019 karl case

16/34

E?hibit 4*4 % the Physical Sciences Report !o' "%2.0%07 prepared by forensiccheist Besse &badilla "ela Rosa'

e defense relied solely on the testiony of Rui) who claied he was the victi of a police frae%up and e?tor

e RT suari)ed the prosecution to

e at "aan 9ari, !avotas, Metro Manila, when he saw a 8eep with policeen on board' & policean naed pped the accused and as:ed for the papers of the hopper which he, at the sae tie, searched with nothin nd inside its copartent =sic>'

e accused then heard soeone rear:ed 4ito pala si Rui),4 and he was told to o alon with the policeen, wally brouht hi to the lyin%in clinic, and then to the police headCuarters where he was as:ed to a:e 4tuboranso4 the hopper@ *arcia =Rui)> was not able to do so because he cannot afford what the policeen were

andin' &s a conseCuence, he was detained and chared in this case which he protested, as nothin wasnfiscated fro hi'

) claied that the case was a truped%up chare ade by the police to e?tort oney fro hi'10#n a:in t

, he aditted that he did not :now PO1 *arcia and that he saw hi for the first when he was arrested'11

9ested that he :new a certain alais who arrested suspected pushersGusers in their place'12

e prosecution and the defense thereafter entered into stipulations on the substance of the rebuttal and sur%rebtionies of PO1 *arcia and Rui), which were ainly reiterations of their earlier testionies'17#n its "ecision o200A, the RT found Rui) uilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crie chared, and sentenced hi to life

prisonent and to pay a fine of P.00,000'00 and costs'1AThe &, on appeal, fully affired the RT

8/11/2019 karl case

17/34

he present appeal before us, Rui) faults the & for believin the testiony of the lone prosecution witness, anvictin hi despite the insufficiency of supportin evidence' 9e observes that5 +a PO1 *arcia

8/11/2019 karl case

18/34

suspectin provincial hic:s, and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all dru deals, the possibility of abuse is us, courts have been e?horted to be e?tra viilant in tryin dru cases lest an innocent person is ade to suffusually severe penalties for dru offenses'4 &ccordinly, specific procedures relatin to the sei)ure and custods have been laid down in the law +R'&' !o' /1-. for the police to strictly follow' The prosecution ust addudence that these procedures have been followed in provin the eleents of the defined offense'

e first procedural safeuard that the police failed to observe +and which both the RT and the & failed to ta:count is that provided under pararaph 1, Section 21, &rticle ## of R'&' !o' /1-.' This provision states5

The apprehendin tea havin initial custody and control of the drus &'a((, iediately after sei)ure andnfiscation, )'y&*+a((y *-eory a/ )'oora)' 'e &ae * 'e )re&e+e o 'e a++u&e/ or 'e )er&o 'o &u+' *e& ere +o*&+ae/ andGor sei)ed, or hisGher representative or counsel, a representativeedia and the "epartent of Bustice +"OB, and any elected public official who shall be reCuired to sin the

pies of the inventory and be iven a copy thereof' =Ephasis supplied'>

e #pleentin Rules and Reulations of R'&' !o' /1-. further elaborate on the leal reCuireent by providin

der its Section 21+a, that5

The apprehendin officeGtea havin initial custody and control of the drus shall, *e/*ae(yafter sei)urenfiscation, physically inventory and photoraph the sae in the presence of the accused or the personGs froo such ites were confiscated andGor sei)ed, or hisGher representative or counsel, a representative fro thedia and the "epartent of Bustice +"OB, and any elected public official who shall be reCuired to sin the copinventory and be iven a copy thereof5 Provided, further that non%copliance with these reCuireents under

tifiable rounds, as lon as the interity and the evidentiary value of the sei)ed ites are properly preserved bprehendin officerGtea, shall not render void and invalid such sei)ures of and custody over said ites'=Ephpplied'>

e records utterly fail to show that the buy%bust tea coplied with these procedures despite their andatory nndicated by the use of 4shall4 in the directives of the law and its ipleentin rules' The procedural lapse is pdent fro the testiony of PO1 *arcia' Testifyin on the handlin of the sei)ed ari8uana, he stated that5

H5 &fter he handed to you the one pac: and then you handed to hi the P200'00, what happened

&5 &fter verifyin the contents and after convincin yself that the sae is ari8uana, # handed to the oney and raised y hand as a pre%arrane=d> sinal'

??? ??? ???

H5 &fter you had arrested the person of the accused, what happened ne?tI

&5 (e brouht hi for edical e?aination and =thereafter> brouht hi to our office'

??? ??? ???

H5 So what happened to the pac: of ari8uana that you were able to buy fro the accusedI

8/11/2019 karl case

19/34

&5 # turned it over to our investiator and then he placed ar:ins on the wrapper'

??? ??? ???

H5 # a handin to you now the iprovise =sic> wrapper' #s this the ar:in that you placedI

&5 Jes, sir, RP%1'

??? ??? ???

H5 (hat happened after you have sei)ed the ite fro the accused or after you have recovered thand placin =sic> ar:insI

&5 #t was sent to the P!P rie Daboratory for laboratory e?aination'27

us, other than the ar:ins ade by PO1 *arcia and the police investiator +whose identity was not disclose

ysical inventory was ever ade, and no photoraph of the sei)ed ites was ta:en under the circustancesuired by R'&' !o' /1-. and its ipleentin rules' (e observe that while there was testiony with respect tor:in of the sei)ed ites at the police station, no ention whatsoever was ade on whether the ar:in had

ne in the presence of Rui) or his representatives'2AThere was li:ewise no ention that any representative frodia and the "epartent of Bustice, or any elected official had been present durin this inventory, or that any ose people had been reCuired to sin the copies of the inventory'2.

People v' Orte)a,2-the ourt, in discussin the iplications of the failure to coply with Pararaph 1, Section cle ## of R'&' !o' /1-., declared5

People v. Laxa, where the buy%bust tea failed to ar: the confiscated ari8uana iediately after the

prehension of the accused, the ourt held that the deviation fro the standard procedure in anti%narcoticserations produced doubts as to the oriins of the ari8uana' onseCuently, the ourt concluded that thesecution failed to establish the identity of the corpus elicti'

e ourt ade a siilar rulin in People v. !imura, where the !arco operatives failed to place ar:ins on th)ed ari8uana at the tie the accused was arrested and to observe the procedure and ta:e custody of the dru

re recently, in "arraga v. People, the ourt held that the aterial inconsistencies with reard to when and whear:ins on the shabu were ade and the lac: of inventory on the sei)ed drus created reasonable doubt aidentity of the corpus elicti' The ourt thus acCuitted the accused due to the prosecutionKs failure to indubita

ow the identity of the shabu' =Ephasis supplied'>

reached the sae conclusion in People v' !a)areno23and People v' Santos, Br',2and recently, in the cases ople v' "ela ru)2/and People v' "e la ru)70where we aain stressed the iportance of coplyin with thescribed procedure' (e also held that strict copliance is 8ustified under the rule that penal laws shall be consctly aainst the overnent, and liberally in favor of the accused' 711awphi1.#w$

addition, we also note that PO1 *arcia testified that he ar:ed the confiscated ites when he returned to thece station after the buy%bust operation' This adission additionally shows that the ar:in was not done

ediately after sei)ure of the ites, but only after a sinificant intervenin tie had lapsed, i'e', after the buy%b
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#fnt31

8/11/2019 karl case

20/34

had ta:en Rui) to a lyin%in clinic for a edical e?aination,72and fro there, to the police headCuarters'nificantly, Rui) confired in his testiony that the buy%bust tea first too: hi to the San Bose Dyin%in enteore proceedin to the police headCuarters'77

People v' Sanche),7Awe held that in case of warrantless sei)ure +such as a buy%bust operation under R'&' !o-., the physical inventory and photoraph of the ites shall be ade by the buy%bust tea, if practicable, a +ethey were sei)ed, considerin that such interpretation is ore in :eepin with the law

8/11/2019 karl case

21/34

erity and evidentiary value of the sei)ed ites have been preserved'

e chain of custo% requirement

Dope) v' People,

A2

we e?plained the iportance of establishin the chain of custody of the confiscated drus, ows5

a ethod of authenticatin evidence, the chain of custody rule reCuires that the adission of an e?hibit beceded by evidence sufficient to support a findin that the atter in Cuestion is what the proponent clais it tould include testiony about every lin: in the chain, fro the oent the ite was pic:ed up to the tie it is oo evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the e?hibit would describe how and fro who it waeived, where it was and what happened to it while in the witnessesK possession, the condition in which it waseived and the condition in which it was delivered to the ne?t lin: in the chain' These witnesses would then desprecautions ta:en to ensure that there had been no chane in the condition of the ite and no opportunity fo

eone not in the chain to have possession of the sae'

ile testiony about a perfect chain is not always the standard because it is alost always ipossible to obtaibro:en chain of custody becoes indispensable and essential when the ite of real evidence is not distinctiveot readily identifiable, or when its condition at the tie of testin or trial is critical, or when a witness has failed

serve its uniCueness' The sae standard li:ewise obtains in case the evidence is susceptible to alteration,perin, containation and even substitution and e?chane' #n other words, the e?hibitKs level of susceptibilityibility, alteration or taperin without reard to whether the sae is advertent or otherwise not dictates tel of strictness in the application of the chain of custody rule' =Ephasis supplied'>

e chain of custody reCuireent is essential to ensure that doubts reardin the identity of the evidence areoved throuh the onitorin and trac:in of the oveents of the sei)ed drus fro the accused, to the pol

forensic cheist, and finally to the court'A7#t is iportant enouh as a concern that Section 1+b of "anerous

us oard Reulation !o' 1, Series of 2002AA

+which ipleents R'&' !o' /1-. specifically defines chain oftody'

hain of ustody4 eans the /u(y re+or/e/ au'or*e/ o-ee&and custody of sei)ed drus or controeicals or plant sources of danerous drus or laboratory eCuipent of each stae, ro 'e *e oure+o*&+a*o o re+e*) * 'e ore&*+ (aboraory o &ae6ee)* o )re&ea*o * +our or&ru+*o.Such record of oveents and custody of sei)ed ite shall include the identity and sinature of thson who held teporary custody of the sei)ed ite, the date and tie when such transfer of custody were course of safe:eepin and used in court as evidence, and the final disposition@

he present case, while PO1 *arcia duly testified on the identity of the buyer and seller, on the consideration tpported the transaction, and on the anner the sale too: place,A.the prosecution

8/11/2019 karl case

22/34

the police station when he turned it over to the investiator' #n the interi, he and the rest of the bubust tea had ta:en Rui) to a lyin%in clinic for edical e?aination' The evidence does not showwas in possession of the ari8uana durin the ride fro the crie scene to the lyin%in center, andthe lyin%in center to the police station'

+b The second lin: in the chain of custody

The second lin: in the chain of custody of the sei)ed ari8uana is fro PO1 *arcia to the policeinvestiator' The identity of this police investiator to who the custody of the sei)ed ari8uana waturned over was not disclosed' &lthouh a readin of the Meorandu dated 6ebruary 2, 2007 sthat a certain 6erdinand Davadia aloa, as Police #nspector hief S"EF, prepared the reCuest folaboratory e?aination of the sei)ed ari8uana to the P!P rie Daboratory, this piece of evidencdoes not establish the latter

8/11/2019 karl case

23/34

e present case is now an added statistic reflectin our disal police and prosecution records' (ithout castine, we call the attention of the authorities to e?ert reater efforts in cobatin the dru enace usin theeuards that our lawa:ers have deeed necessary for the reater benefit of our society' (e cannot afford t

her in cobatin the dru enace or in protectin the individual rihts and liberties we have enshrined in ournstitution' Either way, the conseCuences of continued failure are hard to iaine'

9ERE6ORE, preises considered, the "ecision dated May 10, 200- of the ourt of &ppeals in &%*'R' R'% 00/.A is RE$ERSE" and SET &S#"E' &ccused%appellant Rui) *arcia %Rui) is hereby &HF#TTE" for failprosecution to prove his uilt beyond reasonable doubt' 9e is ordered iediately REDE&SE" fro detentio

ess he is confined for any other lawful cause'

a copy of this "ecision be furnished the "irector of the ureau of orrections, Muntinlupa ity for iediatepleentation' The "irector of the ureau of orrections is directed to report to this ourt within five days froeipt of this "ecision the action he has ta:en' opies shall also be furnished the "irector *eneral, Philippinetional Police, and the "irector *eneral, Philippine "rus Enforceent &ency, for their inforation'

e Reional Trial ourt is directed to turn over the sei)ed ari8uana to the "anerous "rus oard for destruccordance with law'

OR"ERE"'

TURO . %R"ONsociate Bustice

E O!FR5

EON$RO $. U"SUM%"NG

&ssociate Busticehairperson

CONC!"T$ C$RP"O MOR$ES&ssociate Bustice

M"N"T$ . C!"CO:N$#$R"O

&ssociate Bustice

"OS$O M. PER$T$

&ssociate Bustice

$ T T E S T $ T " O N

test that the conclusions in the above "ecision had been reached in consultation before the case was assinwriter of the opinion of the ourt

8/11/2019 karl case

24/34

rsuant to Section 17, &rticle $### of the onstitution, and the "ivision hairperson

8/11/2019 karl case

25/34

17Records, p' 1@ Order dated Buly 12, 200A'

1A& Rollo, p' .1'

1.

#d', p' 17A'1-&s stated in the rief for the &ccused%&ppellant, Reply, and Suppleental rief, & rollo, pp' -2103%117@ rollo, pp'22%2'

13rief for &ppellee@ & rollo, pp' 2%101'

1The Philippine "ru Enforceent &ency'

1/Supranote 13, p' //'

20People v. 'omanga%, *'R' !o' 137A7, Septeber 27, 200, citin People v. 'el (uno, .10 S

..A, .-2 +200-, citin People v. Isnani, A71 SR& A7/, AA/ +200A, and People v. (onte, A0 S70., 70/%710 +2007'

21People v' Bocson, *'R' !o' 1-/3., "eceber 1, 2003, .A0 SR& .., ./2@ #nternational !arontrol Stratey Report 200 +The Philippinesreleased by the ureau for #nternational !arcotics Daw Enforceent &ffairs http5GGwww'shap'hawai'eduGdrusGincsr200GincsrQ200QThe Philippineshtl +visited !oveber 21, 200'

22*'R' !o' 177001, "eceber 1A, 2000, 7A SR& 11-, 12-%123, citin People v. )ireng, 2A1 S11 +1//. and People v. Pagaura, 2-3 SR& 13 +1//3'

27TS!, May 2A, 200A, pp' 3%/'

2APeople v. 'e la &ru#, *'R' !o' 133222, October 2/, 200'

2.#d'

2-*'R' !o' 1370.1, Buly 71, 2003, .2 SR& 3.0, 3.%3./'

23*'R' !o' 13A331, Septeber 11, 2003, .72 SR& -70, -73'

2*'R' !o' 13../7, October 13, 2003, .7- SR& A/, .0A'

2/*'R' !o' 11.A., October , 200'

70Supra note 2A'

71I.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#rnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#rnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#rnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#rnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#rnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#rnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#rnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#rnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#rnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#rnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#rnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#rnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#rnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#rnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#rnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#rnt31

8/11/2019 karl case

26/34

72TS!, May 2A, 200A, p' '

77TS!, Buly 2, 200A, pp' 2%A'

7A

*'R' !o' 13.72, October 1., 200'7.#d'

7-Records, p' A3'

73I., p' .'

7TS!, May 2A, 200A, p' /'

7/Supra note 2.'

A0Supra note 7.'

A1I.

A2*'R' !o' 132/.7, &pril 70, 200'

A7People v. Sanche#,supra note 7., citin Lope# v. People, supra note A2'

AA*uidelines On The ustody &nd "isposition Of Sei)ed "anerous "rus, ontrolled PrecursorsEssential heicals, and Daboratory ECuipent pursuant to Section 21, &rticle ## of the #RR of R'&/1-. in relation to Section 1+b, &rticle # of R'&' !o' /1-.'

A.TS!, May 2A, 200A, pp' -%3'

A-hain of ustody refers to procedures to account for each specien by trac:in its handlin andstorae fro point of collection to final disposal' These procedures reCuire that the applicant

8/11/2019 karl case

27/34

A/People v. Santos,Br', supra note 2, p' .07'

.0Ta:en fro the news article entitled 4&nti%"ru Daw in ordillera 9ih "isissal Rate of asesTraced to Daw (ea:ness4 by "onna "eetillo and Eler ristian "uioy http5GGnewsinfo'inCuirer'net !oveber 1/, 200'

.1#d'

.2#nternational !arcotics ontrol Stratey Report 200 +The Philippines released by the ureau fo#nternational !arcotics and Daw Enforceent &ffairshttp5GGwww'shap'hawai'eduGdrusGincsr200GincsrQ200QThe Philippines' htl +visited !ovebe200'

Dawphil Pro8ect % &rellano Daw 6oundation

lawphil

Today is Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Search

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#rnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#rnt50http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#rnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#rnt52http://www.lawphil.net/legalink/legalink.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/international/interlaw.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/executive/executive.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/courts/judiciar.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/judjuris.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/statutes/statutes.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/consti/constitu.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/index.htmlhttp://history.back%281%29/http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#rnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#rnt50http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#rnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#rnt52

8/11/2019 karl case

28/34

R. No. 177741 $uu& 27, 2009

OPE OF T!E P!""PP"NES,&ppellee,

"E R"ER$,&ppellant'

" E # S # O !

RP"O MOR$ES,J.:

"ecision of &uust 1A, 200-,1the ourt of &ppeals affired the conviction of (illie Rivera +appellant by theional Trial ourt of Pasi ity, ranch 1.A for violation of Section ., &rticle ## of Republic &ct !o' /1-. +R'&'-., the 4&omprehensive 'angerous 'rugs Act of 2**2'4

e #nforation aainst appellant reads5

or about March 17, 2007, in Pasi ity, and within the 8urisdiction of this 9onorable ourt, the accused +appebein authori)ed by law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and ive away to ilassan M' Salisa, a police poseur%buyer, two +2 heat%sealed transparent sachets each containin four centi

0A ra of white crystalline substance, which were found positive to the test of ethylaphetaine hydrochanerous dru, in violation of the said law'

!TR&RJ TO D&('2

the docuentary and testionial evidence for the prosecution, particularly the testiony of its principal wit7 &ilassan Salisa +PO7 Salisa, the followin version is culled5

March 17, 2007, upon the reCuest of the Pasi ity Mayor

8/11/2019 karl case

29/34

8/11/2019 karl case

30/34

ord it, hence, they chared hi with violation of Section ., &rticle ## of R'&' /1-.'

pellant presented Dourdes Sanche), his otherhen there were any :ibit)ers around,4 they draed hiar the van'4

din for the prosecution, the trial court, by "ecision of Banuary 27, 200A, convicted appellant, disposin as fo

!EREFORE, preises considered, 8udent is hereby rendered findin the accused

8/11/2019 karl case

31/34

pellant voluntarily waived his constitutional protection aainst illeal arrest'

any event, appellant forets that fro the evidence for the prosecution, he was arrested while coittin a crddlin of illeal drus, a circustance where warrantless arrest is 8ustified under Rule 117, Section .+a of thees of ourt which reads5

' .' &rrest without warrant@ when lawful' & peace officer or a private person ay, without a warrant, arrest son5

+a (hen, in his presence, the person to be arrested has coitted, is actuallycoittin, or isatteptin to coit an offense'

? ? ? ?

pellant

8/11/2019 karl case

32/34

sence of appellant or if photoraphs thereof were ta:en, the defense did not propound Cuestions suestin to the interity of the sachets'

ople v. Pringasteaches that non%copliance with Section 21 is not necessarily fatal as lon as there is 8ustifiaund therefor, what is iportant bein the preservation of the interity and evidentiary value of the sei)ed ite

n%copliance by the apprehendinGbuy%bust tea with Section 21 is not fatal as lon as there is 8ustifiable rorefor, and as lon as the interity and the evidentiary value of the confiscatedGsei)ed ites, are properly presethe apprehendin officerGtea' #ts non%copliance will not render an accusedKs arrest illeal or the ites)edGconfiscated fro hi inadissible' (hat is of utost iportance is the preservation of the interity and thdentiary value of the sei)ed ites, as the sae would be utili)ed in the deterination of the uilt or innocenceaccused'1-+itation oitted, ephasis supplied

pellant, as inPringas, has not Cuestioned at any stae of the case the custody and disposition of the ites ta: hi'

all events, the ourt appreciates no showin that the interity of the sei)ed ites has been coproised'

9ERE6ORE, the &uust 1A, 200- "ecision of the ourt of &ppeals is$FF"RME'

OR"ERE"'

NC!"T$ C$RP"O MOR$ESsociate Bustice

E O!FR5

EON$RO $. U"SUM%"NG&ssociate Bustice

hairperson

$RTURO . %R"ON&ssociate Bustice

M$R"$NO C. E C$ST"O&ssociate Bustice

RO%ERTO $. $%$&ssociate Bustice

& T T E S T & T # O !

test that the conclusions in the above "ecision were reached in consultation before the case was assined toter of the opinion of the ourt

8/11/2019 karl case

33/34

E R T # 6 # & T # O !

rsuant to Section 17, &rticle $### of the onstitution, and the "ivision hairperson

8/11/2019 karl case

34/34

and or surrendered, for proper disposition in the followin anner5

+1 The apprehendin tea havin initial custody and control of the drus shall, iediatelafter sei)ure and confiscation, physically inventory and photoraph the sae in the presenthe accused or the personsGs fro who such ites were confiscated andGor sei)ed, or hisrepresentative or counsel, a representative fro the edia and the "epartent of Bustice +and any elected public official who shall be reCuired to sin the copies of the inventory and iven a copy thereof@ ? ? ?

17Records, p' /'

1A#d' at 11'

1.#d' at 12'

1-*'R' !o' 13./2' &uust 71, 2003, .71 SR& 2, A2%A7'

e Dawphil Pro8ect % &rellano Daw 6oundation
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_177741_2009.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_177741_2009.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_177741_2009.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_177741_2009.html#rnt16http://history.back%281%29/http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_177741_2009.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_177741_2009.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_177741_2009.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_177741_2009.html#rnt16

Documents

karl case