rule 126- crimper
of 5
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
  Sec. 6 – Issuance and Form of Search Warrant People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee vs. Olive Rubio amaril, !ccused-appellant  For review through this appeal – CA’s decision which afirmed the conviction of accused Olive Rubio Mamaril of possession of dangerousdrugs (in violation of RA ! # $ec% !!& art% ''  Comprehensive )angeous )rugs Act of *++*,%Facts-.ill of Rights/ 0resumption of 'nnocence% 'n this case& the so1called frame1up was virtuall2 pure allegation bereft of credible proof% 3he narration of the police oficer who implemented the search warrant was found& after trial and appellate review& as the true stor2% 't is on irmer ground than the self1serving statement of the accused1appellant of frame1up% 3he defense cannot solel2 rel2 upon the constitutional presumption of innocence for& while it is constitutional& the presumption is not conclusive% 5otabl2& the accused1appellant herself stated in her brief that 6no proof was proffered b2 the accused1appellant of the police oficers’ alleged ill motive%7 $tated otherwise& the narration of the incident b2 law enforcers& buttressed b2 the presumption that the2 have regularl2 performed their duties in the absence of convincing proof to the contrar2& must be given weight% People of the Philippines vs. Olive Rubio Mamaril. G.R. No. 171980, October , !010. .ill of Rights/ 0robable Cause3here is no general formula or i8ed rule for the determination of probable cause since the same must be decided in light of the conditionsobtaining in given situations and its e8istence depends to a large degree upon the indings or opinion of the 9udge conducting thee8amination% 't is presumed that a 9udicial function has been regularl2 performed& absent a showing to the contrar2% 3he defense’s reliance of the :uoted testimon2 of the police oficer alone& without an2 other evidence to show that there was indeed lac; of personal ;nowledge& is insuficient to overturn the inding of the trial court% 3he accused1appellant& having failed to present substantial rebuttal evidence to defeat the presumption of regularit2 of dut2 of theissuing 9udge& cannot not be sustained b2 the Court% People of the Philippines vs. Olive Rubio Mamaril. G.R. No. 171980, October , !010 % F! #S$   On *# March *++<& at -<+ o’cloc; in the evening& $0O= Ale8is >otidoc& along with the members of 'ntel Operatives of 3arlac Cit20olice $tation and 0hilippine )rug ?nforcement Agenc2 (0)?A,& implemented $earch @arrant 5o% !==C dated ! March *++< issuedb2 Budge Alipio umul of .ranch & Regional 3rial Court& Capas& 3arlac against the appellant in her residence at Done !& .aranga2Maliwalo& 3arlac Cit2& 0rovince of 3arlac%  0rior to the search& the police team invited .aranga2 Eagawad Oscar 3abamo of .aranga2 Maliwalo to witness the conduct of thesearch and seiure operation in the appellant’s house%  @ith .aranga2 Eagawad 3abamo& the police team presented the search warrant to appellant and informed her of the purpose of thesearch and her constitutional rights%  Afterwards& $0O= >otidoc& the designated searcher& started searching the appellant’s house& in the presence of the appellant andEagawad 3abamo%  )uring his search& he found on the top cover of the refrigerator one (!, plastic sachet containing white cr2stalline substance%  3hereafter he prepared a Certiicate of >ood $earch and Coniscation Receipt which the appellant refused to sign%  3he plastic sachet was brought to the 3arlac 0rovincial Crime Gaborator2 located at 3arlac 0rovincial Hospital for :ualitativee8amination%  3he e8amination conducted b2 ?ngr% Marcene >% Agala& the Forensic Chemist who tested the white cr2stalline substance& 2ieldedpositive results for +%+## gram of Methamphetamine H2drochloride& commonl2 ;nown as shabu& a dangerous drug%3he factual version presented b2 the defense is-  On *# March *++<& at -<+ o’ cloc; in the evening the police oficers arrived at appellant’s house and showed her a search warrant% 3hereafter& the policemen searched her house but found nothing%  3hen a certain 0olice Oficer 0angilinan as;ed her where she was sleeping%  @hen she replied that she was inside the hut& the police oficers proceeded to and searched the place and found the plastic sachet containing the shabu%  3hereafter& she was brought to the sub1station at Maliwalo and was told& particularl2 b2 $0O= >otidoc and a certain Ma’am )ula2that in e8change of 0*+&+++%++& no case would be iled against her%  @hen she told them that she did not have mone2& she was detained%  However& on cross1e8amination& the appellant admitted that the alleged e8tortion of 0*+&+++%++ was not reported to the higherran;ing police oficers%Accused – Appellant claims that the police oficers framed her up and planted the shabu inside her house because of her refusal to givethem mone2% ISS%&$ @hether or not the accused1appellant is innocent of violating $ection !!& Article ''& of RA ! #% R%'I()$ 5o% 3he Court of Appeals ruled that the evidence for the prosecution full2 proved be2ond reasonable doubt the elements necessar2 to  successfull2 prosecute a case for illegal possession of a regulated drug& namel2& (a, the accused is in possession of an item or an ob9ect identiied to be a prohibited or a regulated drug& (b, such possession is not authoried b2 law and (c, the accused freel2 and consciousl2possessed said drug%Centered on the conduct of the search of appellant’s house that 2ielded the prohibited substance& the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court on the inding that 6after a careful evaluation and anal2sis of the arguments presented b2 the prosecution and the defense& we hold that thesearch conducted b2 the '53?G Operatives of 3arlac Cit2 0olice $tation& in coordination with the 0)?A& on the residence of the accused1appellant on *# March *++< at Done !& .aranga2 Maliwalo& 3arlac Cit2 and the seiure therein of one (!, plastic pac; of white cr2stallinesubstance of methamphetamine h2drochloride or 6shabu7 weighing +%+## gram are legal% As a conse:uence of the legal search& the saidmethamphetamine h2drochloride or 6shabu7 seied on the occasion thereof& is admissible in evidence against the accused1appellant%73he accused1appellant& through her new counsel from the 0ublic Attorne2’s Ofice& goes further bac;& presenting new arguments& that (!,the search warrant was not based on probable cause& hence& the evidence allegedl2 obtained through it ma2 not be admitted to support theaccused1appellant’s conviction and (*, the presumption of regularit2 in the performance of oficial functions b2 public oficers cannot prevail over the presumption of innocence%3he srcinal position of the accused which& in this petition& begins with the contention of non1compliance with all the re:uisites of illegalpossession of dangerous drugs% @e agree with the rulings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that there was indeed full satisfactionof the re:uisites for the conviction of the accused%3he trial court found that the evidence presented b2 the prosecution was not ade:uatel2 defeated% Re1stating that in illegal possession of prohibited drugs& there are onl2 three (<, elements to secure conviction- (!, accused is in possession of the prohibited drugs/ (*, suchpossession is not authoried b2 law/ and (<, accused consciousl2 and freel2 possessed the prohibited drugs& the trial court held that allthese were established be2ond doubt% 't determined that appellant failed to proffer evidence enough to discredit the prosecution andrender doubtful his guilt%3he argument is without merit%'n the case at hand& the so1called frame1up was virtuall2 pure allegation bereft of credible proof% 3he narration of the police oficer whoimplemented the search warrant& was found after trial and appellate review as the true stor2% 't is on irmer ground than the self1servingstatement of the accused1appellant of frame1up%3he defense cannot solel2 rel2 upon the constitutional presumption of innocence for& whileit is constitutional& the presumption is not conclusive% 5otabl2& the accused1appellant herself stated in her brief that 6no proof wasproffered b2 the accused1appellant of the police oficers’ alleged ill motive%7 '! !*I( v. !()I(O A%M% M3B1+!1!<= & Bul2 & *++<FAC3$-  .efore this Court is a complaint iled b2 0$upt% Rud2 >% Gacadin of Camp Macabulos& 3arlac Cit2 against Budge Marvin .% Mangino of the Municipal 3rial Court (.ranch !, of 3arlac Cit2 for gross ignorance of the law%On Februar2 ! & !& respondent issued two search warrants for the search and seiure of irearms and shabu in the house of Antonio EaoGim in 3arlac Cit2% On Februar2 * & !& $0O< Cesario I% Gapitan iled a motion to e8tend the validit2 of the search warrants& due to their failure to use said warrants within its period of effectivit2% 3hat same da2& respondent issued an Order e8tending the effectivit2 of said warrants up to ifteen da2s from that date%'nformation for violation of $ection ! & Art% '''& R%A% 5o% =*#& as amended& and for 'llegal 0ossession of Firearms and Ammunitions were iled against Gim on March *& ! with the Regional 3rial Court (.ranch <,& 3arlac Cit2% On March #& !& the accused iled a Motion to Iuash $earch @arrants and 'nformation before ?8ecutive Budge Adriano& principall2 on the ground that when the peace oficers implemented the search warrants& the same were alread2 null and void& as their implementation on March *& ! was more than ten da2s from the issuance of the warrants% Budge Adriano ordered the release of the accused and the dismissal of the two 'nformation in an Order%Budge Adriano stated that instead of 9ust acting favorabl2 on the motion for e8tension of its lifetime of the search warrants& the issuing Court should have conducted clariicator2 :uestionings as if a new application for search warrant is iled% 'f there is a need thereafter& then another warrant should be issued instead of issuing an illegal order e8tending the life of the search warrant alread2 null and void% 3he search conducted b2 the peace oficers were illegal& all the evidence obtained therefrom is also inadmissible in evidence hence the accused is ordered released from custod2%'n his Comment& respondent M3C Budge e8plained& thus- He granted the motion to e8tend the validit2 of the warrants because the ;e2 witness Romeo Collado could not be presented immediatel2 for clariicator2 :uestions in order that a new one ma2 be issued% 'n granting the e8tension he also considered the ruling in 0eople vs% 5arvas that even if the evidence is missing& the case could still be established through the indubitable testimonies of witnesses% 'n this case& the testimon2 of Romeo Collado& which served as the basis for issuance of thesrcinal search warrant& could also be used in prosecuting the accused% 'n a Resolution dated Februar2 !=& *++!& this Court resolved to doc;et the instant administrative case as a regular administrative matter% 'n its evaluation& the Ofice of the Court Administrator found that based on $ection & Rule !* & !# Rules of Criminal 0rocedureRespondent 9udge erred in e8tending the effectivit2 of the search warrants& the same being an utter disregard of the Rules% 3he OCA then recommended that respondent be ined the amount of 0#&+++%++ for >ross 'gnorance of the Gaw%'$$J?$-!% 's respondent 9udge guilt2 of gross ignorance of the lawK
Similar documents
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks