Facts: According to the prosecution, in the morning of Nov. 17, 1986, PO Jose Luciano gave money and instructed his civilian informer to buy marijuana from the accused at the Cocoland Hotel. He actually saw the accused selling marijuana to his civilian informer and that same day Luciano applied for a search warrant.
About 2pm that day, a police raiding team armed with a search warrant went to the Brgy captain for them to be accompanied in serving the said warrant at the residence of the accused. The police was allowed to enter the house upon the strength of the warrant shown to the accused. The accused begged the police not to search and to leave the house. The police still searched the house and was led to the kitchen. She pointed a metal basin on top of a table as the hiding place of died marijuana flowering tops contained in a plastic bag marked ISETANN. The police also recovered from a native “uway” cabinet dried marijuana flowering tops wrapped in 3 pieces of komiks paper.
According to the accused, when the police arrived at her house, she saw Sgt. Yte and PFC Jose Luciano. She invited Sgt. Yte to enter her house while Luciano was left in the jeep that was parked near the house. While inside the house Yte showed the accused something he claimed as a search warrant, when someone coming from the kitchen uttered “eto na” They proceeded to the kitchen and saw Luciano holding a plastic bag with four other companions. They confronted the accused and insisted that the bags belonged to her. Accused denied the accusation and told them that she doesn’t know anything about it. She was made to sign a prepared document. She was brought to the police station and was detained.
The court renders judgment finding the accused guilty.
Issue: Whether or Not the evidence was properly obtained by the police.
Held: In the investigation report prepared by Luciano stated that during the search they discovered a hole at the backyard of the house of the suspect, there was a big biscuit can inside the hole and on top of the cover a flower pot was placed wherein the marijuana was kept. However, there was no mention of any marijuana obtained from a flower pot in any of their testimonies. There were inconsistencies insofar the prosecution is concerned, as to what was recovered and where, the trial court concluded that these inconsistencies are trivial. There must sufficient evidence that the marijuana was actually surrendered by the accused. As held in PP vs. Remorosa, Irreconcilable and unexplained contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses cast doubt on the guilt of appellant and his culpability to the crime charged.
The claim that the marijuana was planted was strengthen as the police violated sec 7, rule 126 rules of the court provides no search of a house, room or any other premise shall be made except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the latter, in the presence of two (2) witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality. This requirement is mandatory to ensure regularity in the execution of the search warrant. Violation of said rule is in fact punishable under Article 130 of the Revised Penal Code.
The document (PAGPAPATUNAY) was inadmissible to the court as the accused was not informed of her right not to sign the document neither was she informed that she has the right to the assistance of a counsel and the fact that it may be used as evidence against her. It was not proved that the marijuana belonged to her. Not only does the law require the presence of witnesses when the search is conducted, but it also imposes upon the person making the search the duty to issue a detailed receipt for the property seized. He is likewise required to deliver the property seized to the judge who issued the warrant, together with a true and accurate inventory thereof duly verified under oath. Again, these duties are mandatory and are required to preclude substitution of the items seized by interested parties.
The guilt of the accused was has not been established. Judgment is reversed.
0 comments:
Post a Comment