G.R. No. 207992
August 11, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-appellee, vs.
ROBERTO HOLGADO Y DELA CRUZ AND ANTONIO MISAREZ Y ZARAGA, Accused-appellants.
ROBERTO HOLGADO Y DELA CRUZ AND ANTONIO MISAREZ Y ZARAGA, Accused-appellants.
Facts:
Accused-appellants Roberto Holgado y Dela
Cruz (Holgado) and Antonio Misarez y Zaraga (Misarez) were charged in an
information dated January 19, 2007.Following their arrest, Holgado and Misarez
were charged for violating Sections
5 (sale of dangerous drugs), in view of the plastic sachet containing a
white crystalline substance supposedly sold by Holgado to PO1 Aure. The charges
for violations of Sections 11(possession
of dangerous drugs) and 12(possession of drug paraphernalia) of Republic Act No. 9165, were in view of the
items supposedly seized in enforcing the search warrant.
After
trial, the Pasig City Regional Trial Court, Branch 154 found Holgado and
Misarez guilty of illegal saleof dangerous drugs (i.e., violating Section 5 of
Republic Act No. 9165). They were acquitted of the charges pertaining to
Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 as the drugs supposedly seized were not
introduced in evidence; and the charges relating to Section 12 of Republic Act
No. 9165 asthe paraphernalia to which PO2 Castulo testified to in court were
different from those indicated in the inventory supposedly made when the search
warrant was enforced.Holgado and Misarez were sentencedto suffer the penalty of
life imprisonment and to pay a penalty of P1million.
On March 4, 2013, Holgado and Misarez filed
their notice of appeal.
On December 27, 2013, Holgado and Misarez
filed their joint supplemental brief where they assailed the supposed lack of
compliance with the requirements set by the chain of custody of seized drugs
and drug paraphernalia as provided by Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.
Issue:
Whether or not Holgado’s and Misarez’s
guilt beyond reasonable doubt for violating Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165
was established?
Held:
No. It was stated in People v. Morales,
that:In actions involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following
elements must first be established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place and
(2) the presentation in court
of the corpus delictior the illicit drug as evidence.
Compliance
with the chain of custody requirement provided by Section 21, therefore,
ensures the integrity of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered drugs and/or drug
paraphernalia in four (4) respects: first, the nature of the substances or items seized;
second, the quantity (e.g.,
weight) of the substances or items seized; third, the relation of the substances or
items seized to the incident allegedly causing their seizure; and
fourth, the relation of the
substances or items seized to the person/s alleged to have been in possession
of or peddling them. Compliance with this requirement forecloses
opportunities for planting, contaminating, or tampering of evidence in any
manner.
After a
closer look, the Court finds that the linkages in the chain of custody of the
subject item were not clearly established. As can be gleaned from his fore
quoted testimony, PO1 Collado failed to provide informative details on how the
subject shabu was handled immediately after the seizure. He just claimed that
the item was handed to him by the accused in the course of the transaction and,
thereafter, he handed it to the investigator.
There
is no evidence either on how the item was stored, preserved, labeled, and
recorded. PO1 Collado could not even providethe court with the name of the
investigator. He admitted that he was not present when it was delivered to the
crime laboratory.
Given
the flagrant procedural lapses the police committed in handling the seized
shabu and the obvious evidentiary gaps in the chain of its custody, a
presumption of regularity in the performance of duties cannot be made in this
case. A presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty is made
in the context of an existing rule of law or statute authorizing the
performance of an act or duty or prescribing a procedure in the performance
thereof. In light of the flagrant lapses we noted, the lower courts were
obviously wrong when they relied on the presumption of regularity in the performance
of official duty.
It is
true that Section 21(1), as amended, now includes a proviso to the effect that
"noncompliance of (sic) these requirements under justifiable grounds, as
long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and
invalid such seizures and custody over said items." However, the
prosecution has not shown that when the buy-bust operation was allegedly
conducted on January 17, 2007 and the sachet was supposedly seized and marked,
there were "justifiable grounds" for dispensing with compliance with
Section 21. Rather, it merely insisted on its self-serving assertion that the
integrity of the seized sachet has nevertheless been, supposedly, preserved.
While
the miniscule amount of narcotics seized is by itself not a ground for
acquittal, this circumstance underscores the need for more exacting compliance
with Section 21.
The
events of January 17, 2007 should be taken and appreciated as a whole even as
they gave rise to four (4) distinct criminal cases which were separately
docketed. The reasons for acquitting accused-appellants for the charges of
violating Sections 11 and 12 seriously cast doubt, not only on
accused-appellants’ own guilt, but more so on the soundness and reliability of
the measures taken and procedures followed by the police operatives. These
circumstances cast a heavy shadow on the integrity of the operation and the
police operatives themselves.
G.R. No. 190569
April 25, 2012
P/INSP. ARIEL S. ARTILLERO, Petitioner,
vs.
ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO, Overall Deputy Ombudsman, Office of the Deputy Ombudsman; BERNABE D. DUSABAN, Provincial Prosecutor, Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Iloilo; EDITO AGUILLON, Brgy. Capt., Brgy. Lanjagan, Ajuy, Iloilo, Respondents.
vs.
ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO, Overall Deputy Ombudsman, Office of the Deputy Ombudsman; BERNABE D. DUSABAN, Provincial Prosecutor, Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Iloilo; EDITO AGUILLON, Brgy. Capt., Brgy. Lanjagan, Ajuy, Iloilo, Respondents.
Facts:
This
case pertains to the criminal charge filed by Private Inspector Ariel S.
Artillero (petitioner) against Barangay Captain EditoAguillon (Aguillon) for
violation of Presidential Decree No. (P.D.) 18661 as amended by Republic Act No. (R.A.) 8249.
According
to petitioner, althoughAguillon was able to present his Firearm License Card,
he was not able to present a Permit to Carry Firearm Outside Residence
(PTCFOR).
In a Resolutiondated
10 September 2008, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Iloilo City
recommended the dismissal of the case for insufficiency of evidence.Petitioner
claims that he never received a copy of this Resolution.
Thereafter,Provincial
Prosecutorforwarded to the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman the Resolution
recommending the approval thereof.
The
Office of the Ombudsman, approved the recommendation of Provincial ProsecutorDusaban
to dismiss the case. It ruled that the evidence on record proved that Aguillon
did not commit the crime of illegal possession of firearm since he has a
license for his rifle.
On 22
June 2009, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) of the 17
February 2009 Resolution, but it was denied. Thus, he filed the present
Petition for Certiorari via Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
1.
Whether
or not petitioner was denied his right to due process when he was not given a
copy of Aguillon’s Counter-affidavit, the Asst. Prosecutor’s 10 September 2008
Resolution, and the 17 February 2009 Resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman.
2.
Whether
or not the public respondents’ actof dismissing the criminal Complaint against
Aguillon, based solely on insufficiency of evidence, was contrary to the
provisions of P.D. 1866 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR)?
Held:
No. A complainant in a preliminary
investigation does not have a vested right to file a Reply—this right should be
granted to him by law. There is no provision in Rule 112 of the Rules of Court
that gives the Complainant or requires the prosecutor to observe the right to
file a Reply to the accused’s counter-affidavit.
The
essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard. "What the law
prohibits is not the absence of previous notice but the absolute absence
thereof and lack of opportunity to be heard." We have said that where a
party has been given a chance to be heard with respect to the latter’s motion
for reconsideration there is sufficient compliance with the requirements of due
process.
At this
point, this Court finds it important to stress that even though the filing of
the MR cured whatever procedural defect may have been present in this case,
this does not change the fact that Provincial Prosecutor Dusaban had the duty
to send petitioner a copy of Aguillon’s Counter-affidavit. Section 3(c), Rule
112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, grants a complainant this
right, and the Provincial Prosecutor has the duty to observe the fundamental
and essential requirements of due process in the cases presented before it.
That the requirements of due process are deemed complied with in the present
case because of the filing of an MR by Complainant was simply a fortunate turn
of events for the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor.
It is
true therefore, that, as petitioner claims, a barangay captain is not one of
those authorized to carry firearms outside their residences unless armed with
the appropriate PTCFOR (Permit to Carry Firearm Outside Resident).
However,
we find merit in respondents’ contention that the authority of Aguillon to
carry his firearm outside his residence was not based on the IRR or the
guidelines of P.D. 1866 but, rather, was rooted in the authority given to him
by Local Government Code (LGC).
In
People v. Monton, Section 88(3) of Batas PambansaBilang 337(B.P. 337), the LGC
of 1983, which reads:In the performance of his peace and order functions, the
punong barangay shall be entitled to possess and carry the necessary firearms
within his territorial jurisdiction subject to existing rules and regulations
on the possession and carrying of firearms.
The
Court hereby rules that respondent Deputy Ombudsman Casimiro did not commit
grave abuse of discretion in finding that there was no probable cause to hold
respondent Aguillon for trial.
Even
the IRR of P.D. 1866 was modified by Section 389 (b) of the LGC as the latter
provision already existed when Congress enacted the LGC.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOSELITO ORJE y BORCE, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No.
189579September 12, 2011
The Facts
That on
or about the 1st day of September, 2005, in Quezon City,
Philippines, the above-named accused, being then the father, did then and
there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, by means of force and
intimidation have sexual intercourse with one [AAA], his own daughter, a minor
16 years old, inside their residence located at [XXX], this City, against her
will and without consent, thereby degrading or demeaning the intrinsic worth
and dignity of the said offended party as a human being.
AAA executed a Sinumpaang
Salaysay (hereinafter referred to also as affidavit of desistance), in
which she expressed her desire to desist from pursuing the sham case against
her father. As she explained while testifying, that the rape incidents never
happened. AAA pointed to her aunt, CCC, as having compelled her to falsely
accuse her father to get back at him for leaving the family when AAA was barely
nine years old. AAA also testified being mad at the appellant for the slap she
got after arriving home late one rainy night.
Issue:
Whether
or not the prosecution has established accused-appellants guilt beyond the
reasonable doubt.
Whether
or not the court is correct in giving credence to AAAs positive testimony the
first time around notwithstanding her retraction of her previous testimonies and
the allegations contained in her affidavit of desistance.
Held:
Courts look with disfavor on affidavits of desistance and/or
retraction. In People v. Bation, it was ruled that: “[A]n affidavit of
desistance is merely an additional ground to buttress the accused’s defenses,
not the sole consideration that can result in acquittal. There must be other
circumstances which, when coupled with the retraction or desistance, create
doubts as to the truth of the testimony given by the witnesses at the trial and
accepted by the judge.
Accused-appellant
cannot plausibly bank on AAAs affidavit of desistance, complemented by her
testimony for the defense, as an exonerating vehicle for his dastardly act.
Other than the retraction or desistance affidavit, nothing in the records would
show any other circumstance of substance accepted by the trial court that would
becloud the veracity of AAAs earlier inculpating testimony.
As
long as the complaining witness musters the test of credibility and
consistency, her testimony deserves full faith and confidence and cannot be
discarded. And if such testimony is clear and credible to establish the crime
beyond reasonable doubt, a conviction of rape based on it may lie even if she
subsequently retracted her earlier testimony.
G.R. No. 207992
August 11, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-appellee, vs.
ROBERTO HOLGADO Y DELA CRUZ AND ANTONIO MISAREZ Y ZARAGA, Accused-appellants.
ROBERTO HOLGADO Y DELA CRUZ AND ANTONIO MISAREZ Y ZARAGA, Accused-appellants.
Facts:
Accused-appellants Roberto Holgado y Dela
Cruz (Holgado) and Antonio Misarez y Zaraga (Misarez) were charged in an
information dated January 19, 2007.Following their arrest, Holgado and Misarez
were charged for violating Sections
5 (sale of dangerous drugs), in view of the plastic sachet containing a
white crystalline substance supposedly sold by Holgado to PO1 Aure. The charges
for violations of Sections 11(possession
of dangerous drugs) and 12(possession of drug paraphernalia) of Republic Act No. 9165, were in view of the
items supposedly seized in enforcing the search warrant.
After
trial, the Pasig City Regional Trial Court, Branch 154 found Holgado and
Misarez guilty of illegal saleof dangerous drugs (i.e., violating Section 5 of
Republic Act No. 9165). They were acquitted of the charges pertaining to
Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 as the drugs supposedly seized were not
introduced in evidence; and the charges relating to Section 12 of Republic Act
No. 9165 asthe paraphernalia to which PO2 Castulo testified to in court were
different from those indicated in the inventory supposedly made when the search
warrant was enforced.Holgado and Misarez were sentencedto suffer the penalty of
life imprisonment and to pay a penalty of P1million.
On March 4, 2013, Holgado and Misarez filed
their notice of appeal.
On December 27, 2013, Holgado and Misarez
filed their joint supplemental brief where they assailed the supposed lack of
compliance with the requirements set by the chain of custody of seized drugs
and drug paraphernalia as provided by Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.
Issue:
Whether or not Holgado’s and Misarez’s
guilt beyond reasonable doubt for violating Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165
was established?
Held:
No. It was stated in People v. Morales,
that:In actions involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following
elements must first be established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place and
(2) the presentation in court
of the corpus delictior the illicit drug as evidence.
Compliance
with the chain of custody requirement provided by Section 21, therefore,
ensures the integrity of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered drugs and/or drug
paraphernalia in four (4) respects: first, the nature of the substances or items seized;
second, the quantity (e.g.,
weight) of the substances or items seized; third, the relation of the substances or
items seized to the incident allegedly causing their seizure; and
fourth, the relation of the
substances or items seized to the person/s alleged to have been in possession
of or peddling them. Compliance with this requirement forecloses
opportunities for planting, contaminating, or tampering of evidence in any
manner.
After a
closer look, the Court finds that the linkages in the chain of custody of the
subject item were not clearly established. As can be gleaned from his fore
quoted testimony, PO1 Collado failed to provide informative details on how the
subject shabu was handled immediately after the seizure. He just claimed that
the item was handed to him by the accused in the course of the transaction and,
thereafter, he handed it to the investigator.
There
is no evidence either on how the item was stored, preserved, labeled, and
recorded. PO1 Collado could not even providethe court with the name of the
investigator. He admitted that he was not present when it was delivered to the
crime laboratory.
Given
the flagrant procedural lapses the police committed in handling the seized
shabu and the obvious evidentiary gaps in the chain of its custody, a
presumption of regularity in the performance of duties cannot be made in this
case. A presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty is made
in the context of an existing rule of law or statute authorizing the
performance of an act or duty or prescribing a procedure in the performance
thereof. In light of the flagrant lapses we noted, the lower courts were
obviously wrong when they relied on the presumption of regularity in the performance
of official duty.
It is
true that Section 21(1), as amended, now includes a proviso to the effect that
"noncompliance of (sic) these requirements under justifiable grounds, as
long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and
invalid such seizures and custody over said items." However, the
prosecution has not shown that when the buy-bust operation was allegedly
conducted on January 17, 2007 and the sachet was supposedly seized and marked,
there were "justifiable grounds" for dispensing with compliance with
Section 21. Rather, it merely insisted on its self-serving assertion that the
integrity of the seized sachet has nevertheless been, supposedly, preserved.
While
the miniscule amount of narcotics seized is by itself not a ground for
acquittal, this circumstance underscores the need for more exacting compliance
with Section 21.
The
events of January 17, 2007 should be taken and appreciated as a whole even as
they gave rise to four (4) distinct criminal cases which were separately
docketed. The reasons for acquitting accused-appellants for the charges of
violating Sections 11 and 12 seriously cast doubt, not only on
accused-appellants’ own guilt, but more so on the soundness and reliability of
the measures taken and procedures followed by the police operatives. These
circumstances cast a heavy shadow on the integrity of the operation and the
police operatives themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment