People vs Olive Mamaril G.R. No. 171980 October 6, 2010
Facts: Duri During ng the the sear search ch in accus accused ed-appellant’s house, SPO4 Gotidoc found on the top cover cover of the refriger refrigerato atorr one (1) plastic plastic sachet containing containing white crystalline subs substan tance. ce. Ther Therea eafte fterr he prep prepar ared ed a Certificate of Good Search and Confiscation Confiscation Receipt which the appellant appellant refused to sign. The The plas plasti tic c sache sachett was was brou brough ghtt to the the Tarlac Provincial Crime Laboratory located at Tarlac Provincial Hospital for qualitative examination. examination. The examination examination conducted conducted by Engr. Marcene G. Agala, the Forensic Chemist Chemist who tested tested the white white crysta crystalli lline ne substance, yielded positive results for 0.055 gram of Methampheta Methamphetamine mine Hydrochlori Hydrochloride, de, common commonly ly known known as shabu, a dangerous dangerous drug. drug.[9] The trial court found the accused-appellant guilty of violation of Section 11, Article II, of R.A. 9165 and so did the CA. In this appeal, accused-appellant, through her new counsel from the Public Attorney’s Office, goes further back, presenting new arguments, that (1) the search warrant was not based on probable cause, hence, the evidence allegedly obtained through it may not be admitte admitted d to suppor supportt the accusedaccusedappell appellant ant’s ’s convict conviction ion;;[18] and (2) the pres presum umpt ptio ion n of regu regula lari rity ty in the the perfor performan mance ce of officia officiall functi functions ons by public officers cannot prevail over the presumption of innocence.[19]
Issue: Whether or not, in this case, said presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions by public officers cannot prevail over the presumption of innocence Held: No.
The repeat repeated ed conten contentio tions ns of frameframe-up up of the accused accused-ap -appel pellan lantt[23] and that the dang danger erou ous s drug drug of meth metham amph phet etam amin ine e hydroc hydrochlo hlorid ride e was plante planted d by the police police officers do not deserve further considerations by this this Court. While We are are aware aware that that in some some cases, cases, law enforc enforcers ers resort to the practice of planting evidence in order that to, int er er alia, harass, nevert neverthel heless ess the defens defense e of frameframe-up up in drug cases requires requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the police officers officers performed performed their duties duties regula regularly rly and that they they acted acted within within the bounds of their authority. [24]
constitutional presumption of innocence over the presumption of regularity in the performance performance of public functions, functions,[26] the cont conten enti tion on being being that that the the fram framee-up up argument is supported by the constitutional presumption of innocence. The argument is without merit. Indeed it is a const itit ut ut io ional mandate[27] that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved and that on the other hand, it is in the Rules of Court[28] that. – “Th “The fol follow lowing ing presu presump mptio tions ns are are satis satisfa facto ctory ry if unco uncont ntra radi dicte cted, d, but but may may be contr contrad adict icted ed and and over overcom come e by other evidence: “xxx “m. That That official duty has been regularl y perfor med; (E mphasi s supplie d) xxx”
In the case at hand, the so-called so-called frame-up was virtually pure allegation bereft of credib credible le proof. proof. The narrat narration ion[29] of the the police officer who implemented the search warrant, was found after trial and appellate revie review w as the the true true stor story. y. It is on firm firmer er ground ground than the self-serving self-serving statement statement of the accused-app accused-appellan ellantt of frame-up frame-up..[30] The defe defens nse e cann cannot ot sole solely ly rely rely upon upon the the constitutional presumption of innocence for, while it is constitutional, the presumption is not not conc conclu lusiv sive. e. Nota Notabl bly, y, the the accu accuse seddappe appell llan antt hers hersel elff sta stated ted in her her brie brief f that that[31] “no “no proo prooff was was prof proffe fere red d by the the accused accused-ap -appel pellan lantt of the police police officer officers’ s’ alleged ill motive.” Stated otherwise, the narration of the incident by law enforcers, buttressed by the presumption presumption that they have regularly regularly perfor performed med their their duties duties in the absence absence of convincing proof to the contrary, must be given weight.
Frame-up, like alibi, is generally viewed with caution by the Court because it is easy asy to contr ontriv ive e and and diff diffic icul ultt to disprove. It is a common and standard line line of defe defens nse e in pros prosec ecut utio ions ns of violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. [25] And And so is the the likew likewis ise e repe repeat ated ed referral to the primacy of the 1
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus OLIVE RUBIO MAMARIL MAMARIL,, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
PEREZ, J .: .: For review through this appeal appeal [1] is the [2] Decision date dated d 31 Augu August st 2005 2005 of the the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR. No. 28482 which which affirme affirmed d the convict conviction ion of herein herein ac cu cus ed ed- ap appellant OLIVE RUBI O MAMARIL MAMARIL of posses possession sion of danger dangerous ous drugs drugs in violati violation on of Section Section 11, Articl Article e II[3] of Repu Republ blic ic Act Act No. No. 9165 165 or the the Comprehensi Comprehensive ve Dangerous Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 2002.. The The disp dispos osit itiv ive e port portio ion n of the the assailed decision reads: WHEREFORE, premises premises considered, considered, the appe appeal al is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The challenged judgment of the court a quo is hereby AFFIRMED. AFFIRMED.[4] The affirmed disposition reads: WHEREFORE, upon proof of guilt beyond reas reason onab able le doub doubt, t, this this court court senten sentences ces accuse accused d Oliv Olive e Rubi Rubio o Mama Mamari rill to suffe sufferr an inde indete term rmin inat ate e prison term of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as mini minimu mum m to twent twenty y (20) (20) years as maximum and a fine of P300, 00 000 f or or viol violati ation on of Secti Section on 11, 11, Article II, of R.A. 9165[5].
The The facts facts as prese present nted ed by the prosecu prosecutio tion n before before the appell appellate ate court court follow: On 25 March 2003, at 9:30 o’clock in the evening, SPO4 Alexis Gotidoc, along with with the members members of Intel Intel Operat Operatives ives of Tarlac Tarlac City Police Station Station and Philippine Philippine Drug Drug Enfo Enforc rcem emen entt Agen Agency cy (PDE (PDEA) A),, implem implement ented ed Search Search Warran Warrantt No. 144C 144C date dated d 18 Marc March h 2003 2003 issu issued ed by Judge Judge Alipio Yumul of Branch 66, Regional Trial Court, Capas, Tarlac against the appellant in her residence at Zone 1, Barangay Maliwalo, Barangay Maliwalo, Tarlac City, Province of Tarlac. Tarlac.[6] Prio Priorr to the search search,, the the poli police ce team team invi invite ted d Barang Barangay ay Kagawa Kagawad d Oscar Oscar Tabamo Tabamo of Barangay of Barangay Mal Maliwa iwalo lo to witnes witness s the the cond conduct uct of the the search search and and seizu seizure re operation in the appellant’s house. With Barangay Barangay Kagawad Kagawad Tabamo, Tabamo, the the poli police ce team team pres presen ente ted d the the sear search ch
warrant to appellant and informed her of the purpose of the search and her constitutional rights. rights.[7] Afterwards, SPO4 Gotidoc, the designated searcher, started searching the appellant’s house, in the presence of the appell appellant ant and Kagawad Tabamo. Kagawad Tabamo. During his search, he found on the top cover of the refr refriiger gerato ator one one (1) plas plasti tic c sach sachet et containing white crystalline subs substa tanc nce. e. Ther Therea eafte fterr he prep prepar ared ed a Certificate of Good Search and Confiscation Confiscation Receipt which the appellant appellant refused to sign. sign.[8] The plastic sachet was brought to the Tarlac Tarlac Provin Provincial cial Crime Crime Labora Laborator tory y locate located d at Tarlac Tarlac Provinc Provincial ial Hospit Hospital al for qualitative qualitative examination. examination. The examination examination conducted conducted by Engr. Marcene G. Agala, the Forens Forensic ic Chemist Chemist who tested tested the white white cryst crystal alli line ne subs substa tanc nce, e, yiel yielde ded d posi positiv tive e results for 0.055 gram of Methamphetamine Hy dr drochloride, c om om mo monly k no nown as shabu, a dangerous drug. drug.[9] The factual version presented by the defense is: On 25 March March 2003 2003,, at 9:30 9:30 o’ clock clock in the evenin evening g the police police office officers rs arrived arrived at appellant’s appellant’s house and showed her her a sear search ch warr warran ant. t. Ther Therea eafte fter, r, the the policemen policemen searched her house but found found nothi nothing ng.. Then Then a certa certain in Poli Police ce Offi Office cer r Pang Pangil ilin inan an aske asked d her her wher where e she she was was sleeping. sleeping. When she replied that she was inside the hut, the police officers proceeded to and searched the place and found the plastic sachet containing the shabu. shabu.[10] Therea Thereafter fter,, she was brough broughtt to the sub-station at Maliwalo and was told, particularly by SPO4 Gotidoc and a certain Ma’am Dulay that in exchange of P20, P20,00 000.0 0.00, 0, no case case woul would d be file filed d against against her. When she told them that she did not have have money, money, she was detain detained. ed. [11] Howeve However, r, on crosscross-exa examin minati ation, on, the appellant admitted that the alleged extortion of P20, P20,00 000.0 0.00 0 was was not not repo reporte rted d to the the higher ranking police officers.[12] Appellant claims that the police offi office cers rs fra framed med her her up and and plan plante ted d the shabu inside her house because of her refusal to give them money. money.[13] Eventu Eventuall ally, y, an Inform Informati ation on was filed against the appellant which reads: That on March 25, 2003 at around 9:30 o’clock in the evening at Tarl Tarlac ac City City and and withi within n the the juri jurisd sdic ictio tion n of this this Honorable Court, accused accused,, did then and there willfully, willfully, unlawfully unlawfully and and crimi crimina nall lly y have have in her her poss posses essi sio on and control Methamphetamine Hydr Hydroc ochl hlor orid ide e know known n as Shabu, Shabu, a danger dangerous ous
drug, weighing weighing more or less 0.055 gram, without being authorized by law. CONTRA RY TO LAW[14] Upon arraignme arraignment, nt, the appellant, appellant, assisted by the de-officio counsel, entered a plea of not guilty. On 21 April 2004, the trial court foun found d the accu accuse sedd-ap appe pell llan antt guil guilty ty of violat violation ion of Section Section 11, Articl Article e II, of R.A. R.A. 9165. 9165.[15] On appeal, the Court of Appeals ruled that the evidence for the prosecution fully proved beyond reasonable doubt the elem elemen ents ts nece necess ssar ary y to succ succes essf sful ully ly prosecute a case for illegal possession of a regulated drug, namely, (a) the accused is in posse possess ssio ion n of an item item or an obje object ct identified to be a prohibited or a regulated drug, (b) such possession is not authorized by law law and and (c) (c) the the accu accuse sed d free freely ly and and consciously possessed said drug.[16] Center Centered ed on the conduct conduct of the search of appellant’s house that yielded the prohibited substance, the Court of Appeals upheld upheld the trial court on the finding finding that that “after a careful evaluation and analysis of the arguments presented by the prosecution and the defense, we hold that the the sear search ch cond conduc ucte ted d by the the INTE INTEL L Operatives Operatives of Tarlac Tarlac City Police Station, in coor coordi dina nati tion on with with the the PDEA PDEA,, on the the residence residence of the accused-appella accused-appellant nt on 25 March 2003 at Zone 1, Barangay Maliwalo, Barangay Maliwalo, Tarlac City and the seizure therein of one (1) (1) plas plasti tic c pack pack of whit white e crys crysta tall llin ine e substance of methamphetamine hydroc hydrochlo hlorid ride e or “shabu” shabu” weighi weighing ng 0.055 0.055 gram are legal. legal. As a consequence consequence of the legal legal search, search, the said methamphetamine methamphetamine hydroc hydrochlo hlorid ride e or “shabu” shabu” seiz seized ed on the the occasion thereof, is admissible in evidence against the accused-appellant.”[17] In this appeal, accused-appellant, through through her new counsel from the Public Public Attorney’s Office, goes further back, presen presenting ting new argume arguments, nts, that that (1) the search warrant was not based on probable caus cause, e, henc hence, e, the evid eviden ence ce alle allege gedl dly y obtained through it may not be admitted to support the accused-appellant’s conviction; [18] and (2) the presumption of regularity in the perfor performan mance ce of officia officiall functio functions ns by publ public ic offic officer ers s cann cannot ot prev prevai aill over over the the presumption of innocence.[19] We first first deal deal with with the the orig origin inal al posi positio tion n of the the accu accuse sed d which which,, in this this petition, petition, begins with the contention contention of noncompliance with all the requisites of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. drugs. We agree with the rulings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that there was indeed full sati satisf sfac acti tion on of the the requ requis isit ites es for for the the conviction of the accused. The The tria triall cour courtt foun found d that that the the evidence presented by the prosecution was not adequately defeated. Re-stating that in illegal possession of prohibited drugs, there 2
are are only only thre three e (3) (3) elem elemen ents ts to secur secure e conviction: (1) accused is in possession of the prohibited drugs; (2) such possession is not authoriz authorized ed by law; law; and (3) accused accused cons conscio cious usly ly and and free freely ly posse possesse ssed d the the prohibited drugs,[20] the trial court held that all these were established beyond doubt. It determined determined that appellant appellant failed to proffer proffer ev id idence enough to dis cr credit the prosecution and render doubtful his guilt. [21] The Court of Appeal Appeals s found found no reason reason to overtu overturn rn the finding finding of the trial court. It held that: After a carefu carefull evalua evaluatio tion n and analysis of the arguments presented by the prosecution and the defe defens nse, e, we hold hold that that the search by the INTEL Operatives of Tarlac City Po l i c e Station, in coord coordin inat atio ion n with with the the PDEA, on the residence of the accused-appellant on Marc March h 25, 25, 2003 2003 at Zone 1, Barangay Maliwalo, Barangay Maliwalo, T ar arlac City and the seizu seizure re ther therei ein n of one one (1) plastic pack of white crystalline crystalline substance substance of methamphetamine hydrochloride or “shabu” or “shabu” weighing weighing 0.055 gram are legal. As a cons conseq eque uence nce of the the lega legall search search,, the said said methamphetamine hydrochloride or “shabu” or “shabu” seized seized on the occa occasi sion on ther thereo eof, f, is admiss admissibl ible e in eviden evidence ce agai against nst the the accu accuse seddappellant. appellant.[22] We will not reverse this hold holdin ing. g. The The repe repeate ated d cont conten enti tion ons s of frame-up frame-up of the accused-app accused-appellan ellantt[23] and that the dangerous drug of metha methamp mphe heta tami mine ne hydr hydroc ochl hlor orid ide e was was plan plante ted d by the the poli police ce offi office cers rs do not not dese deserv rve e furt furthe herr consid consider erat atio ions ns by this this Court. Court. While We are are aware that that in some cases, law enforcers resort to the practice of planting evidence in order that to, inter alia, alia, harass, harass, nevert neverthel heless ess the defens defense e of frame-up in drug cases requires strong and conv convin inci cing ng evid eviden ence ce beca becaus use e of the the pres presum umpt ptio ion n that that the the poli police ce offi office cers rs performed performed their duties duties regularly regularly and that they they acte acted d with within in the the boun bounds ds of thei their r authority. authority.[24] Frame-up, Frame-up, like alibi, alibi, is generally generally viewed with caution by the Court because it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove. It is a common and standard line of defense in pros prose ecuti cution ons s of viol viola ation tions s of the the Dangerous Dangerous Drugs Act.[25] And And so is the the likewise repeated referral to the primacy of the constitutional presumption of innocence over over the presumpti presumption on of regula regularit rity y in the perf perfor orma manc nce e of publ public ic func functio tions ns,,[26] the
cont conte entio ntion n bein eing that that the the fram framee-up up argument is supported by the constitutional presumption of innocence. The argument is without merit. Indeed it is a const itit ut ut io ional mandate[27] that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved and that on the other hand, it is in the Rules of Court[28] that. – “Th “The fol follow lowing ing presu presump mptio tions ns are are satis satisfa facto ctory ry if unco uncont ntra radi dicte cted, d, but but may may be contr contrad adict icted ed and and over overcom come e by other evidence: “xxx “m. That That official duty has been regularl y perfor med; (E mphasi s supplie d) xxx”
In the case at hand, the so-called so-called frame-up was virtually pure allegation bereft of credib credible le proof. proof. The narrat narration ion[29] of the the police officer who implemented the search warrant, was found after trial and appellate revie review w as the the true true stor story. y. It is on firm firmer er ground ground than the self-serving self-serving statement statement of the accused-app accused-appellan ellantt of frame-up frame-up..[30] The defe defens nse e cann cannot ot sole solely ly rely rely upon upon the the constitutional presumption of innocence for, while it is constitutional, the presumption is not not conc conclu lusiv sive. e. Nota Notabl bly, y, the the accu accuse seddappe appell llan antt hers hersel elff sta stated ted in her her brie brief f that that[31] “no “no proo prooff was was prof proffe fere red d by the the accused accused-ap -appel pellan lantt of the police police officer officers’ s’ alleged ill motive.” Stated otherwise, the narration of the incident by law enforcers, buttressed by the presumption presumption that they have regularly regularly perfor performed med their their duties duties in the absence absence of convincing proof to the contrary, must be given weight.[32] We now deal with t he he lat e submission submission about the validity validity of the search warrant. A party cannot change his theory on appeal nor raise in the appellate court any question of law or of fact that was not raised in the court below or which was not within the issue raised by the parties in their pleadings.[33]
In a long line of cases, this Court held that points of law, theories, issues and argu argume ment nts s not not adeq adequa uate tely ly brou brough ghtt to the attention of the trial court ordinarily will not be considered by a reviewing court as they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal because this would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice and due process. process.[34] We opt to get out of the ordinary in this case. After all, technicalities technicalities must serve, not burden the cause of justice. It is a prud pruden entt cour course se of acti action on to excu excuse se a techni technical cal lapse and afford afford the parties parties a review of the case on appeal to attain the ends of justice. [35] We thus allow the new arguments for the final disposition of this case. The conten contentio tion n of the accuse accuseddappellant, appellant, as asserted asserted through through the Public Public Attorney’s Office, is that the issued search warrant was not based on probable cause. [36] The accused-appellant relied heavily on its argument argument that SPO4 SPO4 Gotido Gotidoc, c, as the applica applicant nt of the search search warran warrant, t, did not testify on facts personally known to him but simply relied on stories that the accusedappellant was peddling illegal drugs. [37] The requisites for the issuance of a search warrant are: are: (1) probable cause is present; (2) such probable cause must be determined personally by the judge; (3) the judge must examine, in writing and under oath or affirmation, the complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce; (4) the applicant and the witnesses testify on the facts personally known to them; and (5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the things to be seized. seized.[38] On the the othe otherr hand hand,, prob probab able le cause means such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonable discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connec connectio tion n with the offens offense e are in the place sought to be searched. searched.[39] Based on the records, the Court is conv convin ince ced d that that the the ques questi tion oned ed sear search ch warrant was based on a probable probable cause. A portion portion of the direct direct testimo testimony ny of SPO4 SPO4 Gotidoc is hereby quoted: Q: What What is your your basis basis for applyi applying ng for search warrant against the accused? A: Because there were many persons who were going to her place and we’ve been hearing news news that that she she is sellin selling g prohib prohibite ited d drugs and some of them them were were even ven identified, sir.
3
Q: But But you you did not not condu conduct ct any any surveillance before you applied for search warrant?
appe appell lla ant, nt, havi having ng fail faile ed to prese resent nt substantial rebuttal evidence to defeat the presum presumptio ption n of regula regularit rity y of duty duty of the issuing judge, will not be sustained by this Court.
Barrios Barrios and Vicente S.E. Veloso concurring. CA rollo, rollo, pp. 54-62. [3] Sect ection ion 11. Poss Posses essi sion on of Dangerous Drugs. Drugs. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred WHEREFORE, the instant appeal thousand thousand pesos (P500,000.00) (P500,000.00) to A: Prio Priorr to the the is DENIED. DENIED. Accordingly, the decision of the Ten million pesos appli pplica cati tion on for for Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR. No. 28482 (P10 (P10,0 ,000 00,0 ,00 00.00 0.00)) shal shalll be sear search ch warr warran ant, t, is hereby hereby AFFIRMED. Costs Costs agains againstt the imposed imposed upon any person, person, who, we conducted appellant. unless unless author authorize ized d by law, law, shall shall surveillance posses possess s any danger dangerous ous drug drug in already. the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity Q: Because thereof: SO ORDERED. ORDERED. personally you xxx heard that the Otherwise, if the quantity involved accused was is less than the foregoing dealin dealing g prohib prohibite ited d quantities, quantities, the penalties penalties shall be drugs and that was graduated as follows: the basis for you to xxx appl apply y for for sear search ch (3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) JOSE warrant with years and one (1) day to twenty Associate Justice Branch 66? (20) (20) years years and a fine ranging ranging from Three hundred hundred thousand thousand WE CONCUR: A: Yes, sir. [40] peso pesos s (P30 (P300, 0,00 000. 0.00 00)) to Four Four (Emphasis hund hundre red d thou thousa sand nd pes pesos supplied) (P400,00 (P400,000.00) 0.00),, if the quantities quantities of dang danger erous ous drugs drugs are are less less xxx than than five five (5) (5) grams grams of opium, of opium, morp morphi hine ne,, hero heroin in,, cocai cocaine ne or Section 6, Rule 126 of the Rules cocaine cocain e hydrochlori hydro chloride, de, marijuana mariju ana RENATO C. CORONA resin or marijuana resin on Criminal Procedure provides that: oil, methamphetamine "shabu" , or If the judge is hydr hydroc ochl hlor orid ide e or "shabu" sati satisf sfie ied d of the the other dangerous dangerous drugs such as, existence of facts but not not limit imited ed to, to, MDMA MDMA or upon upon whic which h the the "ecstasy", PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, application is and those those simila similarly rly design designed ed or based or that newly introduced drugs and their there there is probable probable deriva derivative tives, s, withou withoutt having having any PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. caus cause e to belie believe ve therapeutic value or if the quantity Associate Justice that they exist, he possessed is far beyond shal shalll issu issue e the the therapeutic requirements; or less warrant, which than three hundred (300) grams of must be marijuana. [4] substantiall substantially y in the CA rollo, rollo, p. 61. LUCAS LUCAS[5] P. BERSAMIN form prescribed by Records, p. 53. [6] iate Justice Assoc Associate these Rules. CA rollo, rollo, p. 55, TSN, 29 August CERTIFICATION (Emphasis 2003, p. 3. [7] supplied) Id. at 56; id. [8] Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of Id.; id at 3-4. [9] the the Cons Consti titu tuti tion on,, I cert certif ify y that that the the Id.; TSN, 14 October 2003, pp. conclusion sions s in the above above Decisio Decision n had There There is no genera generall formul formula a or conclu 6-7. [10] been been reache reached d in consult consultatio ation n before before the fixed rule for the determinati determination on of probable TSN, 5 February 2004, p. 3. [11] case case was was assig assigne ned d to the the writ writer er of the the cause since the same must be decided in Id. Id. at 56-5 56-57, 7, TSN, TSN, 5 Febr Februa uary ry opinion of the Court’s Division. light light of the condit condition ions s obtain obtaining ing in given given 2004, p. 6. [12] situations and its existence depends to a Id. at 57; id. at 10-11. [13] large degree upon the findings or opinion of Id. at 56; id. at 6. [14] the judge conducting the examination. examination.[41] Records, p. 1. [15] Id. at 53. [16] It is pres presum umed ed that that a judi judici cial al CA rollo, rollo, p. 59. [17] RENATO C. CORONA functio function n has been been regula regularly rly perfor performed med,, Id. at 60-61. [18] abse absent nt a show showin ing g to the the cont contra rary ry.. A Supplemental Brief. Rollo, Rollo, p. 280. [19] Justice Justice magistrate’ magistrate’s s determinati determination on of a probable probable Id. at 283. [20] cause for the issuance of a search warrant People v. Chen Tiz Chang , G.R. is paid with great deference by a reviewing No. 131872-73, 382 Phil. 669, 684 (2000). [21] court, court, as long long as there there was substanti substantial al Records, p. 52. [42] [22] * Addi Additio tiona nall memb member er per per Raffl Raffle e basis for that determination. Id. at 60-61. [23] dated 1 March 2010. TSN, 5 February 2004, p. 6. [1] [24] Via a notice of appeal, pursuant The The defen defense’ se’s s reli relian ance ce of the the Chan v. Secretary of to Section 2 (c) of Rule 122 of the Rules of quoted testimony of the police officer alone, Justice, G.R. G.R. 147065 147065,, 14 March March Court. withou withoutt any other other eviden evidence ce to show show that that 2008, 548 SCRA 337, [2] Penn Penned ed by Asso Associ ciate ate Justi Justice ce the there was ind indeed eed lack lack of pers person ona al 353; Dacles v. People, People, G.R. No. Amelita G. Tolentino with knowle knowledge dge,, is insuffi insufficie cient nt to overtu overturn rn the 1714 171487 87,, 14 Marc March h 2008 2008,, 548 548 Associate Justices Roberto A. findin finding g of the trial trial court. court. The The accuse accuseddSCRA 643, 658. 4
[25]
People v. Del Monte, Monte, G.R. No. 179940, 23 April 2008, 552 SCRA 627, 639; People People v. Concepcion Concepcion,, G.R. No. 178876, 27 June 2008, 556 SCRA 421, 443. [26] Rollo, Rollo, p. 283. [27] Art. III, Section 14 (2), 1987 Constitution. [28] Sec. Sec. 3, Rule Rule 131, 31, Rule Rules s on Criminal Procedure. [29] TSN, 29 August 2003, p. 3-4. [30] TSN, 5 February 2004, p. 6-7. [31] Rollo, Rollo, p. 283. [32] Remedial Law, Revised Rules on Evidence, Oscar M. Herrera, 1999 Edition Edition,, p. 82; People People v. Lopez Lopez , G.R. No. 71875, Jan 25, 1988; People v. Mauyao, Mauyao, G.R. No. 84525, 84525, 6 April April 1992, 1992, 207 SCRA 732, 738. [33] Sari Sari Group Group of Companies, Inc. Inc. v. Pigl Piglas as Kama Kamao o (Sari (Sari Sari Sari Chapte Chapter), r), G.R. G.R. No. 164624 164624,, 11 August 2008, 561 SCRA 569, 589. [34] Phil Philip ippi pine ne Comm Commer erci cial al and and Interna Internatio tional nal Bank Bank v. Custodi Custodio o, G.R. G.R. No. 173207 173207,, 14 Februa February ry 2008, 545 SCRA 367, 380; Heirs of Cesar Marasigan v. Marasigan, G.R. G.R. No. 156078, 156078, 14 March 2008, 548 SCRA 409, 431432; East Easter ern n Assu Assura ranc nce e and and Surety Surety Corporatio Corporation n v. Con-Field Con-Field Constru Constructio ction n and Develop Developmen ment t Corporation, Corporation, G.R. No. 159731, 22 April 2008, 552 SCRA 271, 279280. [35] Peñoso v. Dona, G.R. No. 154018, 3 April 2007, 520 SCRA 232, 239240. [36] Rollo, p. 280. [37] Id. at 282. [38] Abuan v. People, People, G.R. No. 168773, 27 October 2006, 505 SCRA 799, 822. [39] Betoy, Sr. vs Coliflores, A.M. Coliflores, A.M. No. MTJMTJ-05 05-1 -160 608, 8, 28 Febr Februa uary ry 2006 2006,, 483 483 SCRA 435, 444. [40] TSN, 29 August 2003, p. 7. [41] Lastri Lastrilla lla v. Granda Granda,, G.R. G.R. No. No. 160257, 31 January 2006, 481 SCRA 324, 347. [42] People v. Choi , G.R. No. 152950, 3 August August 2006, 2006, 497 SCRA 547, 556.
5