Anda di halaman 1dari 6

People v. Jacinto G.R. No.

182239, March 16, 2011


FACTS: In the evening of January 28, 2003 at about 6 oclock in the evening, FFF, the father of the victim AAA, sent his 8 year old daughter CCC to buy cigarettes at the store of Rudy Hatague. AAA followed CCC. When CCC returned without AAA, FFF was not worried as he thought AAA was watching television at her aunt Rita Lingcays house. Julito Apike went to the same store at around 6:20 PM to buy a bottle of Tanduay Rum and saw appellant place AAA on his lap. Julio, Hermie and AAA left the store at the same time, Julito proceeded to Ritas house while Hermie and AAA to the lower area. AAA was brought by Hermie to the ricefield near the house of spouses Alejandro and Gloria Perocho, there AAA was made to lie down on the ground, her panties removed and was boxed by the accused in the chest. Half-naked, accused mounted AAA and made a push and pull movement causing AAA to cry. Appellant then went to the house of the Perochos while the victim went home crying. Medicolegal exam revealed hymenal laceration at 5 and 9 oclock. RTC finds accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, a fine of PHP 75,000 as rape indemnity and PHP 50,000 as moral damages. CA on appeal affirmed the lower courts decision with the following modifications: (1) accused should suffer an indeterminate penalty from 6 years and 1 day to 12 years of prision mayor as minimum to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal as maximum and fined PHP 75,000 as civil indemnity, PHP 75,000 as moral damages, and PHP 25,000 as exemplary damages. . ISSUE: Is the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape? RULING: Yes, the Court considered three well-entrenched principles: (1) accusation of rape can be made with facility, it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove, (2) testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution, (3) evidence for prosecution must stand on its own merit and not depend on the weakness of the defense. The Court finds that the testimony of the victim was credible, natural and convincing as proven by victims positive identification of the accused, description of what was done to her and how the accused spread her legs, inserted his penis and made push and pull movements. This was corroborated by medico-legal findings of hymenal lacerations. Court finds that the prosecution sufficiently established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but imposes a penalty of reclusion perpetua, and affirms the damages awarded by the CA of PHP 75,000 as civil indemnity, PHP 75,000 as moral damages and increasing exemplary damages to PHP 30,000. Furthermore, in accordance with Section 38 of RA 9344, automatic suspension of sentence is applied and in accordance with Section 51 of RA 9344, accused is confined to an agricultural camp or other training facility established, maintained, and controlled by BUCOR in coordination with the DSWD.

People v. Sarcia
G.R. No. 169641, September 10, 2009 FACTS: Sometime in 1996, five year old AAA together with her cousin and two other playmates were playing in the yard of Saling Crisologo near a mango tree. Appellant Richard Sarcia, 18 or 19 years old at the time appeared and invited AAA to go with him to the backyard of Saling Crisologos house, whereupon appellant removed AAAs shorts and underwear, made her lie on her back and after removing his own trousers and brief laid on top of AAA and made up-and-down movements which caused AAA to feel pain in her genital area and in her stomach. Unknown to appellant, AAAs cousin followed them and watched the whole incident from a distance. AAAs cousin reported such AAAs mother but was rebuffed. AAAs father was working in Manila at the time. On July 7, 2000, AAAs father filed a complaint for acts of lasciviousness which upon review of evidence was upgraded to rape by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Ligao, Albay. Medico-legal findings reported absence of introital vulval laceration nor scars but with perforated hymen. On January 17, 2003, the RTC Branch 13 of Ligao City found accused-appellant guilty of rape and fined PHP 50,000 as civil indemnity, PHP 50,000 as moral damages and cost of suit. The CA affirmed the RTCs decision but modified the penalty to death and increased fines of civil indemnity to PHP 75,000, PHP 25,000 as exemplary damages and PHP 50,000 as moral damages. ISSUE: Is the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape? RULING: Yes, the Court ruled that inconsistencies in testimonies of witnesses which refer only to minor details do not affect the veracity of their testimonies when the principal occurrence and positive identification of accused is made and indeed proves that such inconsistencies speaks of spontaneity and the unrehearsed nature of such undertaking. Inability of the victim, AA, to recall the exact date of the incident cannot discredit credibility of victim since it is not an essential element of the crime. Neither is the delay in filing the crime a stain on the credibility of witnesses since it is common for rape victims to prefer silence for fear and lack of courage. Furthermore, the employment of force, threat, intimidation are not elements of statutory rape, only carnal knowledge must be proven to have taken place. Alibi or denial is the weakest defense as it is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove. The Court affirms the decision of the CA with the following modifications: (1) death penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua, (2) PHP 75,000 as moral damages, PHP 30,000 as exemplary damages, and PHP 75,000 as civil indemnity and remanded to the court a quo for disposition in accordance with Section 51 of RA 9344.

David v. People G.R. No. 181861, October 17, 2011

FACTS: On June 29, 2003 at around 1PM the Intelligence Operative of Concepcion Police Station, Concepcion, Tarlac descended upon L. Cortez St., Brgy. San Jose, Concepcion, Tarlac to conduct a search with a warrant upon the house of Raul David accompanied by Brgy. Captain Antonio Cannono and found six (6) sachets of marijuana and three (3) plastic sachets of a substance identified as methamphetamine HCL on top of a locked aparador. At the time the appellant was two meters away in the sala, photographs of seized items were taken and inventoried and signed by Brgy. Captain Cannono Apellant was then charged with violation of Section 11, Art. II, of RA 9165 for illegally possessing 3.865 grams of marijuana and 0.327 grams of methamphetamine HCL. The RTC Branch 66, Capas, Tarlac sentenced the accused to imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day as minimum to 14 years as maximum and a fine of PHP 300,000. On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the lower court but modified penalty to imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day as minimum to 14 years as maximum and a fine of PHP 300,000 for the illegal possession of marijuana and imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day as minimum to 14 years as maximum and a fine of PHP 300,000 for illegal possession of shabu. ISSUE: Did the CA err in affirming with modifications the decision of the RTC? RULING: Yes, the Court ruled that in all criminal prosecutions for possession of dangerous drugs to prosper, the following elements must be present: (1) the offender is in possession of an item or object that is prohibited or regulated, (2) that such possession is not authorized by law and (3) that possession is freely and consciously done. Such were present when PO3 Flores found the six sachets of marijuana and 3 sachets of shabu on top of the aparador and affirmed by Brgy. Captain Cannono when he affixed his signature in the certificate of good search. However, the Court applied the principle that penal statutes are construed in favor of the accused against the state and so affirms the single penalty imposed by the RTC and sets aside the modified penalty imposed by the CA, therefore, the accused is sentenced to imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day as minimum to 14 years as maximum and a fine of PHP 300,000 for the illegal possession of marijuana and shabu. Petition is denied.

People v. Ancheta G.R. No. 197371, June 13, 2012


FACTS: On August 10, 2004 at 545 PM, a team of law enforcers from the Makati Police Station Anti-Drug Abuse Council descended on Llorando Compound, Brgy. East Rembo, Makati City to conduct a buy-bust operation. Through an informant, PO1 Marmonejo, poseur-buyer purchased PHP 500 worth of shabu from a certain Joker, later identified as Joel Ancheta and arrested the same. Also arrested were John Llorando, the man in the alley who took the marked money and handed it to Ancheta and Juan Carlos Gernada, the laundry man who was paid by Ancheta a sachet of a white crystalline substance for his laundry services. Recovered from accused-appellant Ancheta were 5 sachets of a white crystalline substance later identified as methylamphetamine HCL, from accused-appellant Gernada 1 sachet of the same. Ancheta was charged for violation of Sec. 5 and 11, Art. II, RA 9165, Gernada with violation of Sec.11, Art. II, RA 9165 and Llorando with violation of Sec. 15, Art. II, RA 9165 In a decision dated September 17, 2008, the Makati City RTC convicted all accused-appellants with the crimes charged against them plus violation of Sec. 5, Art. II, RA 9165 for Llorando. CA affirmed the decision of the RTC on November 30, 2010. ISSUE: Will the failure of arresting officers to follow Sec. 21, Art. II, RA 9165 cause the discharge of the accusedappellants from the crimes in which they were convicted? RULING: Yes, the Court ruled that the failure of the arresting officers to follow Sec. 21, Art. II, RA 9165 without stating a (1) justifiable cause and (2) its failure to protect the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items invalidates the arrest process and the evidences seized. Court sets aside the decision of the CA which affirmed the conviction of Joel Ancheta, John Llorando and Juan Carlos Gernada by the RTC of Makati City and acquits them of the crimes charged against them and are ordered to be immediately released.

PDEA v. Brodett and Jorge G.R. No. 196390, September 28, 2011

FACTS: On April 13, 2009, the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) of Muntinlupa charged Richard Brodett and Joseph Jorge for violating Section 5, in relation to Section 26 (b) of RA 9165 after being caught selling and trading 9.8388 grams of methamphetamine HCL on September 19, 2008. Likewise, on April 16, 2009, Brodett was charged for violating Sec. 11 of RA 9165 for possession of various drugs in an incident on the previously noted date. On July 30, 2009, Brodett filed a Motion to Return Non-Drug Evidence, among which is a 2004 Honda Accord car registered in the name of Myra S. Brodett that PDEA refused to return as it was used in the commission of the crime and which was supported by the OCP, stating that such vehicle be kept during the duration of the trial to allow the prosecution and defense to exhaust its evidentiary value. On November 4, 2009, the RTC ordered the return of the car to Myra S. Brodett after it was duly photographed. PDEA filed a motion for reconsideration, such being denied. PDEA then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which was also denied, citing Sec. 20 of RA 9165. ISSUE: Can the car owned by an innocent third party not liable for the unlawful act be returned to its owner although such car was used in the commission of a crime? RULING: The Court ruled that a property not found to be used in an unlawful act and taken as evidence can be returned to its rightful owner but only when the case is finally terminated. The Court further states that the order to release the car was premature and in contravention of Section 20, Par. 3 of RA 9165 which states that property or income in custodia legis cannot be disposed, alienated or transferred during the pendency of the case. Court resolves that all RTCs comply with Section 20, RA 9165 and not release articles, drugs or non-drugs, for the duration of the trial and before rendition of judgment, even if owned by innocent third party. Respondents having been acquitted of the crime charged the Court will not annul the orders of the RTC nor reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Petition is DENIED. People v. Dela Cruz G.R. No. 177222, October 29, 2005
FACTS: On or about September 12, 2002 in Mandaluyong City, appellant Ronilo dela Cruz is accused of unlawfully, feloniously and willfully delivering, distributing or selling to poseur-buyer PO2 Nick Resuello 0.03 grams of a white crystalline substance and later identified as methamphetamine hydrochloride for PHP 100. Appellant was charged for violation of Section 5, Art. II of RA 9165 and was found guilty by the RTC of Mandaluyong, Branch 211 on June 14, 2004 and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of PHP 500,000. On appeal the CA affirmed the lower courts decision in toto on November 30, 2006. . ISSUE: Was the arrest of appellant valid and are the evidence admissible in court in accordance with RA 9165? RULING: The Court ruled that the arrest of appellant was unlawful and was not in accordance with Section 21 of RA 9165. Evidence seized was not properly processed as the arresting officers failed to comply with the guidelines regarding the custody and control of seized drugs despite its mandatory terms. Marking of evidence, although done at the police station, was not done in the presence of the accused or his representatives, no representative from the media, the DOJ, and any elected public official was present during the inventory of seized drugs nor had such people been required to sign the copies of inventory. No photographs of evidence were taken as prescribed by Section 21, Art. II of RA 9165. Court ruled that evidence presented does not support conviction for violation of Section 5, Art. II of RA 9165 and prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the offense. In all criminal prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be established: (1) the transaction must have taken place, (2) corpus delicti presented as evidence and (3) buyer and seller must be identified. Decision of the RTC of Mandaluyong, Branch 211 is reversed and set aside and the appellant acquitted and released.

People v. Kamad G.R. No. 174198, January 19, 2010


FACTS: On October 16, 2002 the Philippine National Police Drug Enforcement Unit of the Southern Police District, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig received information from an asset that a certain Zaida was selling shabu at Purok IV, Silverio

Compound, Paranaque City. At 10 PM of October 16, 2002, SPO2 Sanchez, poseur-buyer, gave marked PHP 300 bills to accused-appellant for the purchase of shabu. Upon receipt of the item, Zaida Kamad and her boyfriend, Leo, were arrested. The RTC Branch 259 of Paranaque City found accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, Article II, of RA 9165 for the illegal sale of 0.20 gram of methamphetamine HCL. On appeal, the CA affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC. ISSUE: Is accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 for the illegal sale of 0.20 gram of shabu? RULING: No, the Court ruled that in the prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must must be established: (1) proof that the transaction took place, (2) corpus delicti presented as evidence. Records showed that the prosecution through SPO2 Sanchez, established the sale of the prohibited drug shabu by accused-appellant but the RTC and the CA failed to notice the defects in the prosecutions case such as (1) lapse in implementing Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 in the handling of the seized shabu and (2) failure of police to comply with the chain of custody rule. For violations of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, no inventory and photographing of seized drugs was done at the place of arrest as well as the presence of the accused as it was being done nor a representative of the media, the DOJ, and any elected pubic official who will confirm that evidence seized were as they were found. Neither was it established by the prosecution why such thing were not followed by presenting (1) justifiable cause and (2) preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of seized evidence as required by the IRR of RA 9165 Section 21-A. For non-compliance of the chain of custody rule, which requires the documentation and description of evidence as it is being processed along the system was neither complied. Court reverses and sets aside the decision of the CA affirming the final judgment of RTC Branch 259 of Paranaque City for the illegal sale of shabu of accused-appellant. Zaida Kamad is hereby acquitted and ordered released from detention.

People v. Lorenzo G.R. No. 184760, April 23, 2010


FACTS: On September 10, 2003 at around 1 oclock in the morning the team of PO1 Noel Pineda conducted a buy-bust operaton in Daangbakal, Dulongbayan I, San Mateo, Rizal and through a police informant, the accused received the marked P100 bills in exchange for a sachet of crystalline substance later identified as shabu, after which the accused, Paterno Lorenzo was arrested for selling methamphetamine hydrochloride in heat-sealed sachets. The plastic sachets seized in accuseds possession contained 2.04 and .20 grams of shabu. The RTC in a decision handed October 5, 2005 found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165 for selling .20 and 2.04 grams of shabu and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of PHP 500,000 for the former and imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day to 12 years and 6 months with a fine of PHP 300,000 for the latter. The CA affirmed the lower courts decision on June 14, 2007. ISSUE: Did the prosecution establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt? RULING: No, the Court ruled that the prosecution was not able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Court stipulated that in order to prosecute illegal sale of drugs the following must be present: (1) identities of the buyer and seller must be established, (2) transaction must have occurred, (3) corpus delicti must be presented as evidence. In addition, for illegal possession of drugs the following elements must be present: (1) the accused must be in possesson of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug, (2) such possession is unauthorized by law, (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed said drug. Furthermore, the arresting team failed to follow the provisions of Sec. 21, Art. II of RA 9165 requiring that evidence be inventoried at the place where it was found and the arrest was conducted in the presence of the accused, photographed in the presence of the accuseds representative/counsel in the presence of a media representative, the DOJ, and any elected public official who will sign on the inventory of seized items. The totality of evidence failed to support the accuseds conviction for violation of Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165. The decision of the CA dated June 14, 2007 is reversed and set aside and the accused-appellant is acquitted of the crime charged and released immediately.

People v. Magat G.R. No. 179939, September 29, 2008


FACTS: On the afternoon of June 9, 2003 at about 430 PM a team of policemen, acting on a validated report from a concerned citizen that appellant, Geraldine Magat, was engaged in selling drugs, descended on the house of said appellant. PO1 Phillip Santos of the Drug Enforcement Unit of Meycauayan Police Station approached appellant as she was standing in front of her house and asked Ate, meron bang dalawang piso? Appellant then went

inside the house and upon returning gave a plastic sachet, PO1 Santos then gave her the 2 marked PHP 100 bills. At which time appellat was informed that she was being arrested for violation of RA 9165. In a decision by Branch 78, RTC of Malolos dated February 21, 2006, appellant was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165. On appeal, the CA in a decision dated June 7, 2007 affirmed the lower courts decision. ISSUE: Did the trial court err in convicting appellant despite the prosecutors failure to establish the identity of the prohibited drugs? RULING: Yes, the Court ruled that in all criminal prosecutions for violations of RA 9165 the following elements must in all criminal prosecutions for violations of RA 9165 the following elements must be proved: (1) that the transaction took place, (2) corpus delicti presented as evidence. In case at bar, Section 21 of RA 9165 was not complied with as PO1 Santos admitted markings of evidence (2 heat sealed sachets) were done at the police station and not in the place of arrest, no inventory or photographs were taken of confiscated items, no representatives of media, the DOJ, and any elected public official was present to to sign the inventory of seized items. PO1 Santos marked the evidence without the presence of the accused, ergo, corpus delicti in this case is not legally extant. Decision of the lower court is reversed and set-aside. Appellant is acquitted on the grounds of reasonable doubt and released.

People v. Martinez et al.


G.R. No. 191366, December 13, 2010 FACTS: On September 2, 2006 at around 1245 PM, PO1 Bernard Azarden was on duty at the Police Community Precinct along Arellano St., Dagupan City when a concerned citizen reported that a pot session was underway in the house of accused Rafael Gonzales in Trinidad Subdivision, Dagupan City. PO1 Azardan, PO1 Alejandro dela Cruz and members of Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) proceeded to aforesaid house. Upon inquiry from people in the area, the house of Gonzales was located. As the team entered the house, accused Orlando Doria was arrested while coming out. Inside the house were Gonzales, Arnold Martinez, Edgar Dizon, and Rezin Martinez. Seized from the accused were open plastic sachets (containing shabu residue), pieces of rolled used aluminum foil and pieces of used aluminum foil. The accused were arrested and brought to police station, seized items were sent to the Pangasinan Provincial Police Crime Laboratory. All accused, except for Doria, were found positive for methylamphetamine HCL. On February 13, 2008, RTC found Arnold Martinez, Edgar Dizon, Rezin Martinez and Rafael Gonzales guilty beyond reasonable doubt under Sec. 13 in relation to Sec. 11, Art. II of RA 9165 and sentenced each to life imprisonment and fined PHP 500,000 plus cost of suit. The CA supported the findings of the lower court. ISSUE: Were the guilt of the accused proven beyond reasonable doubt? RULING: No, the Court finds that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt because (1) evidence against the accused are inadmissible and (2) even if the evidence were admissible, the chain of custody was not duly established . The evidence is inadmissible because of the illegal arrest, search and seizure. Searches and seizures without a warrant are valid in (1) incidence of lawful arrest, (2) plain view search of evidence, (3) moving vehicle search, (4) consented search, (5) customs search, (6) stop and frisk, (7)exigent and emergency cases. Under Rule 113, Sec. 5 of RRCP warrantless arrest can only be done in in flagrante cases, hot pursuit cases, and fugitive cases. The arrest of the accused-appellants were based solely on the report of a concerned citizen, no surveillance of the place was conducted. Under Rule 113, fugitive case does not apply. In flagrante and hot pursuit case may apply only upon probable cause, which means actual belief or reasonable ground of suspicion. It is reasonable ground of suspicion when suspicion of a person to be arrested is probably guilty of the offense based on actual facts, that is, supported by circumstances. In case at bar, this is not the case since the entire arrest was based on uncorroborated statement of a concerned citizen. The chain of custody as outlined in Sec. 21, Art. II of RA 9165 was not observed as no proper inventory, photographing, was done in the presence of the accused nor were there representatives from the media, the DOJ and any popularly elected official present, although in warrantless seizures, marking and photographing of evidence may be done at the nearest police station. Court sets aside and reverses the decision of the CA dated August 7, 2009, acquits the accused and orders their immediate release.

People v. Umipang G.R. No. 190321, April 25, 2012


FACTS: On April 1, 2006 at around 6PM, a buy-bust team from the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special Operation Task Force (SAID-SOTF) of the Taguig City Police descended along Cagayan de Oro Street, Maharlika Village, Taguig City after a confidential informant reported a certain Sam was selling drugs upon aforesaid place. PO2 Ruchyl Gasid acted as poseur-buyer and was given PHP 500 marked money. PO2 Gasid and confidential informant, upon finding Sam, asked the latter if they could buy PHP 500 worth of drugs. Sam then took out 3 plastic sachets containing a white crystalline substance with various price tags 500, 300, 100. After making the choice PO2 Gasid paid Sam PHP 500. Upon receipt of money, PO2 Gasid took of his cap as pre-arranged signal that the sale has been consummated. Sensing danger Sam attempted to flee the scene but was promptly accosted

by the other members of the buy-bust team. Five more marked sachets containing the same white crystalline substance were recovered from Sam and promptly marked SAU (Sammy A. Umipang) by PO2 Gasid. For the sale of the sachet of 0.05 gram of shabu, which violates Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165, the RTC of Pasig City sentenced accused-appellant to life imprisonment and fined PHP 500,000. For possession of 5 sachets of shabu wih a total weight of 0.23 gram, which is a violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of RA 9165, the same court sentenced accused-appellant to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of 12 years and 1day minimum to 14 years, 21 days as maximum and fined PHP 300,000. On appeal, CA affirmed the lower courts decision in toto. ISSUE: Did the RTC and the CA err in finding the testimonial evidence of the prosecution witnesses as sufficient to convict accused-appellant of the alleged sale and possession of methylamphetamine HCL, which are violations of Secs. 5 and 11, Art. II of RA 9165 respectively? RULING: Yes, the Court reiterates once again that buy-bust operations, although proven to be an efficient way to flush out illegal transactions, are also susceptible to police abuse. Hence, strict adherence to procedures laid down by RA 9165, specifically Sec. 21, Art. II must be followed. It is evident that said section was blatantly disregarded by the buy-bust team when no proper inventory was done, no photographs taken and no representatives from the media, the DOJ, and any publicly elected official were present. Section 86 of RA 9165 was also not followed as the PDEA was not contacted with regards to the operation. Although failure to follow Sec. 21, Art. II of RA 9165 ipso facto is not fatal to the prosecutions case, it must be shown why such was not carried out by (1) justifiable cause and (2) preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were guaranteed. Court maintains that presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions cannot overrule the step- by-step procedure outlined in RA 9165 as it is a matter of substantive law. The court further asserts that the conduct itself of the buy-bust team was defective for the following reasons: (1) material inconsistencies in the marking of the evidence. This is shown by the admission of PO2 Gasid, who marked the seized items with the accused-appellant initials SAU (Sammy Abdul Umipang) allegedly at the scene of the operation. However, PO2 Gasid admits that prior to the operation he did not know of the identity or full name of the accused, the latter being only known as Sam. It was PO2 Saez, in the police station, who got Sams full name. (2) SAID-SOTF did not show genuine and sufficient third party representatives enumerated in Sec. 21, Art. II of RA 9165 as evidenced by PO2 Gasids admission during cross-examination that no effort was made to contact the barangay captain or any barangay official of Brgy. Maharlika. (3) SAID-SOTF did not properly accomplish the Certificate of Inventory. PO2 Gasid, who prepared such document, did not sign it. Court sets aside the decision of the CA affirming the July 24, 2007 RTC decision and acquits Sammy A. Umipang of the crimes charged herein and ordered released immediately.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai