People V. Lacbanes J. Romero
Mar. 20, 1997. G.R. No. 88684
Facs! Cesar Facs! Cesar Lacbanes was convicted by the Palo, Leyte RTC for violating Art. Art. II Sec. 4 of RA 64! "#angero$s #r$gs Act%. In this a&&eal he clai's entra&'ent was never clearly established by the &rosec$tion(s evidence. The &rosec$tion relied on the testi'ony of P)C Rosales, 'e'ber of the Tacloban Tacloban Police Station *arcotics Section. "#ens accor$%n& o Rosales+ Rosales + his co''and received info that Lacbanes had been selling 'ari$ana cigarettes in Tacloban City. S$rveillance was done, then a b$y-b$st o&eration was set $&. 4+! &.'.,/ct. 0, 126 at the corner of 3$rgos and Tarcela Tarcela Streets, Tacloban City, their confidential agent told P)C Rosales and tea' 'e'bers Patrol'en Ar&on Ar&on and 3$ena, Sgt. adriaga and Lt. Saran5a, that he contacted Lacbanes. The tea' &ositioned the'selves to see the sale clearly. The agent taled to Lacbanes, handed hi' 'ared P!.77 bills and received s$s&ected 'ari$ana cigarettes. The tea' a&&roached, said they were 'e'bers of the *arcotics Section and arrested Lacbanes. They fo$nd the bills and 0 stics of s$s&ected 'ari$ana cigarettes with hi'. 8e was bro$ght to the station. Lacbanes was infor'ed of his rights &rior to investigation, i nvestigation, and he $nderstood the'. 8e ad'itted that the 'ari$ana with hi' was for sale and that his friend was the so$rce. 3$t they forgot to &$t the ad'ission of g$ilt down in writing. "#ens accor$%n& o Lacbanes! he Lacbanes! he was slee&ing at ho'e fro' -4 &.'., and woen $& by his dad, who told hi' that Lt. Saran5a, "with Ar&on and 3$ena% wanted to tae hi' to the station. 8e was ased if he new the whereabo$ts of Cresencio de la Cr$59$&on denial, he was forced to sign a &a&er which t$rned o$t to be a recei&t for sei5ed &ro&erty "the bills and 'ari$ana%. 8e denied nowing Rosales and said he was not there. Since the agent was not &resented in co$rt, he also clai's that Rosales: testi'ony was e;$ivalent to hearsay, and it a'o$nted to a violation of his constit$tional right to now the witnesses against hi' and 'eet the' in co$rt. 8e also alleged that the 'ared bills weren:t &resented as &roof before the trial tri al co$rt. 'ss(e! 's )e con#%c%on s%ll #al%$* +el$! e +el$! es. s. R- /FF'RM". /FF'RM". The 'ared bills were &resented as &roof d$ring Rosales: direct e
is not valid here either beca$se there:s no clear or convincing evidence of it. 8owever, the Co$rt sa%$ )a )e rece%p p(rpore$l s%&ne$ b Lacbanes 3as %na$m%ss%ble as e#%$ence, beca(se )e prosec(%on a%le$ o pro#e )a )e 3 as ass%se$ b co(nsel a )e %mema5%n& % a #%ola%on o )%s r%&) o rema%n s%len.
Lesly Rodiel 3ries
