ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 143197-99. September 27, 2000]

PEOPLE vs. EMMANUEL BULLALAYAO, et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 27 2000.

G.R. Nos. 143 197-99 (People of the Philippines v. Emmanuel Bullalayao, People of the Philippines.)

Acting on a tip they had received by radio on October 8, 1996, police officers entered Room 194 of the Villa Lydia Inn at San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte and found Emmanuel Bullalayao, Dean Velasco, and Lystraniel Chico inside the room. Bullalayao was lying prone on the bed. When they asked him to stand up, the police found on the bed 14 sachets containing crystalline granules which were later confirmed to be shabu. The three were charged with violation of R.A. No. 6425, Art III, �16 (possession of metamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu).

The Regional Trial Court, Branch 16, Laoag City, to which the case was assigned, dismissed the case against Chico and Velasco on the ground that the evidence did not show that the shabu was found in their possession, custody, or control although they were inside the same room where the shabu was found. In another order, dated March 1, 2000, the RTC granted Bullalayao's demurrer to evidence and dismissed the case. The RTC held that the arrest without a warrant of Bullalayao was illegal and, therefore, the seizure of the sachets of shabu could not be justified as an incident of a valid arrest. The prosecution moved for reconsideration, but the motion was denied on May 2, 2000.

From the said orders, the prosecutor filed a notice of appeal on the ground that the RTC's orders are "contrary to the facts established and the law applicable."

Considering the foregoing, the Court RESOLVED to DISMISS the prosecution's appeal on the ground that to allow it would place accused Bullalayao in double jeopardy. In a similar case, People v. Bans, 239 SCRA 48(1994), the accused were charged with violation of P.D. No. 1866 (illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions). After the prosecution rested its case, the accused filed a demurrer to evidence alleging failure on the part of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. According to the accused, since the search warrant and the order to break open six vaults were illegally issued, the firearms and ammunitions seized in compliance therewith are inadmissible in evidence. The trial court granted the demurrer and acquitted the accused. The Court held that "the resolution of the Demurrer to Evidence was based on the ground of insufficiency of evidence after a finding that the search warrant was illegally issued. . . . Double jeopardy therefore applies to this case and this Court is constitutionally barred from reviewing the order acquitting the accused."

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS

Clerk of Court�

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE