December 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > December 2008 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 180191 : December 03, 2008] DANNY CACAO MIGUEL V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES :
[G.R. No. 180191 : December 03, 2008]
DANNY CACAO MIGUEL V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 03 December 2008:
G.R. No. 180191 (Danny Cacao Miguel v. People of the Philippines). - Petitioner Danny Cacao Miguel was charged for possession of two (2) small plastic sachets of shabu[1] When arraigned on October 1, 2002, petitioner entered a plea of not guilty.
The prosecution claims that on September 24, 2002, at around 11:30 a.m., pursuant to Regional Trial Court (RTC) Order, SPO4 Ramos and .. SP'03 Lagundino, together with Atty. Chan of the PAO and Assistant Prosecutor Layugan, went to the residence of one Eugene Collado to conduct an ocular inspection at the second floor of a two-storey house suspected to be a drug lair. Upon reaching the site, all the members of the team went inside the house except SPO3 Lagundino who parked their car. On the way to the second floor, SPO4 Ramos saw the petitioner. Ramos asked petitioner why he was there but petitioner did not answer, instead the latter left the place and went towards the main gate. There, petitioner and SPO3 Lagundino met. The police officer saw that petitioner was holding with his thumb and forefinger, two (2) transparent plastic sachets of white crystalline substance. Petitioner was about to put said sachets in his pocket when, to his surprise, SPO3 Lagundino was there. Having a clear view of the sachets which appeared to contain shabu, the police officer demanded for them from petitioner who hesitantly opened his palm, exposing the sachets which, upon examination, were positively confirmed as shabu, weighing a total of 0.039 grams.
On the other hand, petitioner contends that he was framed by the police officers and the sachets of shabu were planted evidence. According to petitioner, he was watching TV on the first floor of the house when the police officers arrived together with one Gilbert Tabaniag. Upon the order of SPO4 Ramos, he went out of the house and was frisked by Gilbert Tabaniag, but nothing was found in his possession. However, to his surprise, SPO3 Lagundino fished out from petitioner's pocket two (2) sachets of shabu. Petitioner relied on the Affidavit of Prosecutor Layugan that indeed the sachets were planted evidence.
Trial on the merits ensued. Thereafter, the RTC convicted the petitioner, sentencing him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment, ranging from 12 years and 1 day, as minimum, to 15 years as maximum, and made to pay a fine of P300,000.00.
Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), claiming that the pieces of evidence of the prosecution are fruits of the . poisonous tree; that the RTC convicted the petitioner despite failure of the prosecution to adduce evidence beyond reasonable doubt; and that the RTC accorded weight to said evidence despite substantial contradictions in the testimony, and lack of credibility of the witnesses.
The CA affirmed in toto the RTC's decision. The CA found SPO3 Lagundino's testimony as honest, straightforward and credible even during cross-examination. This, together with the presumption that the police officer regularly performed his duties, prevail over the defenses of frame-up and planted evidence specially because the defenses are not duly supported by evidence. The CA found that the affidavit of Prosecutor Layugan does not support petitioner's contention that the sachets of shabu were planted on his person. Moreover, the CA held that the plain view doctrine is applicable in this case considering the factual circumstances and SPO3 Lagundino's familiarity with shabu through his three (3) decades of experience as a police officer. In sum, petitioner was caught in flagrante delicto.
Before this Court, petitioner asseverates that the police officers were ill-motivated against him since, per SPO4 Ramos1 testimony, they knew the petitioner before his arrest because every time they conducted drug operations in the suspected drug lair said police officers saw petitioner. But no crime was imputed to the petitioner during these previous operations. Thus, on September 24, 2002, the police officers saw the chance to finally pin a charge against petitioner. Petitioner also points to the material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Petitioner claims that the plain view doctrine is not applicable in this case because at the time he was apprehended, petitioner was not committing any crime. Lastly, petitioner posits that the CA disregarded the crucial first link in the chain of custody of the evidence seized due to lack of marking.[2]
In its Comment,[3] the OSG points out that while petitioner claims that the police officers had some ill-motive, he failed to cite circumstances or reasons as to dent the credibility of said officers. Furthermore, petitioner had waived his right to question the admissibility of the evidence as he failed. to timely object during its presentation and formal offer.
We find that petitioner failed to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in its assailed Decision. Like alibi, frame-up as a defense has invariably been viewed with disfavor as it is a common and standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. Clear and convincing evidence is required to prove the defense of "frame-up," and this, the petitioner has failed to proffer.[4]
Petitioner's attempt to downgrade the testimonies of the police officers is unavailing, because it has not been shown that they had an improper motive.
Moreover, we find merit in the OSG's contention that during the entire examination in court, petitioner did not question or object to the admissibility of the evidence. Having made no objection before the trial court, petitioner cannot raise this question for the first time on appeal. The evidence having been admitted without objection, we are not inclined to reject it. To disregard unceremoniously a major portion of the prosecution's case at this late stage when it can no longer present additional evidence as substitute for that which is now claimed to; be inadmissible goes against fundamental fairness.[5]
As a general rule, objects in the "plain view" of an officer, who has the right to be in the position to have that view, are subject to seizure without a warrant. It is usually applied where a police, officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. Thus, the following elements must be present before the doctrine may be applied: (a) a prior valid intention based on the valid warrantless arrest or on a valid warrant, in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties; (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have the right to be where they are; (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and (d) "plain view" justified the seizure of evidence without further search.[6]
In this case, the police officers were at 'the place pursuant to a lawful order of the RTC and the two transparent plastic sachets of shabu were inadvertently discovered by SPO3 Lagtindino as petitioner was about to put them inside his pocket. From experience, and by plain sight, SPO3 Lagundino knew that the same contained shabu. All told, the plain view doctrine is applicable.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 180191 (Danny Cacao Miguel v. People of the Philippines). - Petitioner Danny Cacao Miguel was charged for possession of two (2) small plastic sachets of shabu[1] When arraigned on October 1, 2002, petitioner entered a plea of not guilty.
The prosecution claims that on September 24, 2002, at around 11:30 a.m., pursuant to Regional Trial Court (RTC) Order, SPO4 Ramos and .. SP'03 Lagundino, together with Atty. Chan of the PAO and Assistant Prosecutor Layugan, went to the residence of one Eugene Collado to conduct an ocular inspection at the second floor of a two-storey house suspected to be a drug lair. Upon reaching the site, all the members of the team went inside the house except SPO3 Lagundino who parked their car. On the way to the second floor, SPO4 Ramos saw the petitioner. Ramos asked petitioner why he was there but petitioner did not answer, instead the latter left the place and went towards the main gate. There, petitioner and SPO3 Lagundino met. The police officer saw that petitioner was holding with his thumb and forefinger, two (2) transparent plastic sachets of white crystalline substance. Petitioner was about to put said sachets in his pocket when, to his surprise, SPO3 Lagundino was there. Having a clear view of the sachets which appeared to contain shabu, the police officer demanded for them from petitioner who hesitantly opened his palm, exposing the sachets which, upon examination, were positively confirmed as shabu, weighing a total of 0.039 grams.
On the other hand, petitioner contends that he was framed by the police officers and the sachets of shabu were planted evidence. According to petitioner, he was watching TV on the first floor of the house when the police officers arrived together with one Gilbert Tabaniag. Upon the order of SPO4 Ramos, he went out of the house and was frisked by Gilbert Tabaniag, but nothing was found in his possession. However, to his surprise, SPO3 Lagundino fished out from petitioner's pocket two (2) sachets of shabu. Petitioner relied on the Affidavit of Prosecutor Layugan that indeed the sachets were planted evidence.
Trial on the merits ensued. Thereafter, the RTC convicted the petitioner, sentencing him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment, ranging from 12 years and 1 day, as minimum, to 15 years as maximum, and made to pay a fine of P300,000.00.
Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), claiming that the pieces of evidence of the prosecution are fruits of the . poisonous tree; that the RTC convicted the petitioner despite failure of the prosecution to adduce evidence beyond reasonable doubt; and that the RTC accorded weight to said evidence despite substantial contradictions in the testimony, and lack of credibility of the witnesses.
The CA affirmed in toto the RTC's decision. The CA found SPO3 Lagundino's testimony as honest, straightforward and credible even during cross-examination. This, together with the presumption that the police officer regularly performed his duties, prevail over the defenses of frame-up and planted evidence specially because the defenses are not duly supported by evidence. The CA found that the affidavit of Prosecutor Layugan does not support petitioner's contention that the sachets of shabu were planted on his person. Moreover, the CA held that the plain view doctrine is applicable in this case considering the factual circumstances and SPO3 Lagundino's familiarity with shabu through his three (3) decades of experience as a police officer. In sum, petitioner was caught in flagrante delicto.
Before this Court, petitioner asseverates that the police officers were ill-motivated against him since, per SPO4 Ramos1 testimony, they knew the petitioner before his arrest because every time they conducted drug operations in the suspected drug lair said police officers saw petitioner. But no crime was imputed to the petitioner during these previous operations. Thus, on September 24, 2002, the police officers saw the chance to finally pin a charge against petitioner. Petitioner also points to the material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Petitioner claims that the plain view doctrine is not applicable in this case because at the time he was apprehended, petitioner was not committing any crime. Lastly, petitioner posits that the CA disregarded the crucial first link in the chain of custody of the evidence seized due to lack of marking.[2]
In its Comment,[3] the OSG points out that while petitioner claims that the police officers had some ill-motive, he failed to cite circumstances or reasons as to dent the credibility of said officers. Furthermore, petitioner had waived his right to question the admissibility of the evidence as he failed. to timely object during its presentation and formal offer.
We find that petitioner failed to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in its assailed Decision. Like alibi, frame-up as a defense has invariably been viewed with disfavor as it is a common and standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. Clear and convincing evidence is required to prove the defense of "frame-up," and this, the petitioner has failed to proffer.[4]
Petitioner's attempt to downgrade the testimonies of the police officers is unavailing, because it has not been shown that they had an improper motive.
Moreover, we find merit in the OSG's contention that during the entire examination in court, petitioner did not question or object to the admissibility of the evidence. Having made no objection before the trial court, petitioner cannot raise this question for the first time on appeal. The evidence having been admitted without objection, we are not inclined to reject it. To disregard unceremoniously a major portion of the prosecution's case at this late stage when it can no longer present additional evidence as substitute for that which is now claimed to; be inadmissible goes against fundamental fairness.[5]
As a general rule, objects in the "plain view" of an officer, who has the right to be in the position to have that view, are subject to seizure without a warrant. It is usually applied where a police, officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. Thus, the following elements must be present before the doctrine may be applied: (a) a prior valid intention based on the valid warrantless arrest or on a valid warrant, in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties; (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have the right to be where they are; (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and (d) "plain view" justified the seizure of evidence without further search.[6]
In this case, the police officers were at 'the place pursuant to a lawful order of the RTC and the two transparent plastic sachets of shabu were inadvertently discovered by SPO3 Lagtindino as petitioner was about to put them inside his pocket. From experience, and by plain sight, SPO3 Lagundino knew that the same contained shabu. All told, the plain view doctrine is applicable.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Violation of Section 11, Art. II of RA 9165 or the Dangerous Drags Act of 2002.
[2] Petition for Review on Certiorari; rollo, pp. 5-12.
[3] Rollo, pp. 41-64.
[4] People v. Cadley, 469 Phil. 515, 527 (2004).
[5] People v. Samus, 437 Phil. 645. 664 (2002).
[6] People v. Compacion, 414 Phil. 68, S3 (2001).
