• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RESTITUTO CARANDANG, HENRY MILAN AND JACKMAN CHUA G.R. No. 175926 6 July 2011 LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: Facts: Henry Milan, Restituto Carandang and Jackman Chua were all inside the room of Milan when the team of Policemen arrived at the place where the alleged drug deal would take place. The door of the room was open but was suddenly closed by Milan when they were alerted of the presence of the police officers. When the police officers were finally able to break open said door, Carandang peppered them with bullets. PO2 Alonzo and SPO2 Red died instantly as a result while SPO1 Montecalvo was mortally wounded. Then, upon seeing their victims helplessly lying on the floor and seriously wounded, Chua ordered Milan to attack the police officers. Following the order, Milan rushed towards Montecalvo but the latter, however, was able to shoot him. The Trial court found Carandang, Milan and Chua guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of two counts of murder for the killing of SPO2 Wilfredo Pilar Red and PO2 Dionisio Alonzo and one count of frustrated murder qualified by treachery and acting in conspiracy with each other. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC‘s ruling that Carandang, Milan and Chua acted in conspiracy in the commission of the crimes charged. Thus, despite the established fact that it was Carandang who fired the gun which hit SPO2 Red, PO2 Alonzo and SPO1 Montecalvo, all three accused were held equally criminally responsible therefor. The trial court explained that Carandang, Milan and Chua‘s actuations showed that they acted in concert against the police officers. Milan and Chua argued that there‘s no direct evidence showing that they conspired with Carandang during the latter‘s act of shooting the three victims. Issue: Whether or not there was conspiracy and treachery in the commission of the crime. Resolution: In People v. Sumalpong, the Court held that conspiracy may also be proven by other means: Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Evidence need not establish the actual agreement among the conspirators showing a preconceived plan or motive for the commission of the crime. Proof of concerted action before, during and after the crime, which demonstrates their unity of design and objective, is sufficient. When conspiracy is established, the act of one is the act of all regardless of the degree of participation of each. The conclusion that Milan and Chua conspired with Carandang was established by their acts (1) before Carandang shot the victims (Milan‘s closing the door when the police officers introduced themselves, allowing Carandang to wait in ambush), and (2) after the shooting (Chua‘s directive to Milan to attack SPO1 Montecalvo and Milan‘s following such instruction). Contrary to the suppositions of appellants, these facts are not meant to prove that Chua is a principal by inducement or that Milan‘s act of attacking SPO1 Montecalvo was what made him a principal by direct participation. Instead, these facts are convincing circumstantial evidence of the unity of purpose in the minds of the three. As co-conspirators, all three are considered principals by direct participation. Neither can the rapid turn of events be considered to negate a finding of conspiracy. Unlike evident premeditation, there is no requirement for conspiracy to exist that there be a sufficient period of time to elapse to afford full opportunity for meditation and reflection. Instead, conspiracy arises on the very moment the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the subject felony. As held by the trial court and the Court of Appeals, Milan‘s act of closing the door facilitated the commission of the crime, allowing Carandang to wait in ambush. The sudden gunshots when the police officers pushed the door open illustrate the intention of appellants and Carandang to prevent any chance for the police officers to defend themselves. Treachery is thus present in the case at bar, as what is decisive for this qualifying circumstance is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victims to defend themselves or to retaliate. Mona Liza D. Antonio 1 FRANCISCO IMSON y ADRIANO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 193003 13 July 2011 CARPIO, J.: Facts: PO1 Gerry Pajares, PO1 Noli Pineda, the confidential informant, and other policemen arrived at around 10:30 p.m. to the place where a buy bust operation was about to be conducted by reason of a report that accused Francisco Imson was selling shabu. Said buy bust operation was not undertaken because they saw Imson talking with Dayao. Thereafter, they saw Imson giving Rolando S. Dayao a transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. Pajares approached the two men and introduced himself. He immediately apprehended Imson while Pineda ran after Dayao who tried to escape. The policemen confiscated two plastic sachets containing the suspected shabu. Imson and Dayao were brought to the Police Station where they executed their joint sworn statements and where the two plastic sachets were marked with ―RDS‖ and ―FIA,‖ the initials of the two. The two plastic sachets were examined and both tested positive for shabu. Two informations for illegal possession of dangerous drugs against Imson and Dayao were filed. In its Decision, the RTC found Imson and Dayao guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. When appealed, the Decision of the Court of Appeals affirmed the Decision of the RTC. Imson and Dayao filed a motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals denied said motion. Hence, the present petition. Issue: Whether or not the two plastic sachets containing shabu were inadmissible in evidence because the integrity of the chain of custody was impaired. Resolution: The failure of the policemen to make a physical inventory and to photograph the two plastic sachets containing shabu do not render the confiscated items inadmissible in evidence. Likewise, the failure of the policemen to mark the two plastic sachets containing shabu at the place of arrest does not render the confiscated items inadmissible in evidence. In People v. Resurreccion, the Court held that the failure of the policemen to immediately mark the confiscated items does not automatically impair the integrity of chain of custody. The Court held: Jurisprudence tells us that the failure to immediately mark seized drugs will not automatically impair the integrity of chain of custody. The failure to strictly comply with Sec. 21(1), Art. II of RA 9165 does not necessarily render an accused‘s arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as these would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. To be able to create a first link in the chain of custody, then, what is required is that the marking be made in the presence of the accused and upon immediate confiscation. ―Immediate Confiscation‖ has no exact definition. Thus, in People v. Gum-Oyen, testimony that included the marking of the seized items at the police station and in the presence of the accused was sufficient in showing compliance with the rules on chain of custody. Marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team. The presumption is that the policemen performed their official duties regularly. In order to overcome this presumption, Imson must show that there was bad faith or improper motive on the part of the policemen, or that the confiscated items were tampered. Imson failed to do so. Mona Liza D. Antonio 2 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOEL GASPAR y WILSON G.R. No. 192816 6 July 2011 CARPIO, J.: Facts: A buy-bust operation was conducted by reason of a text message that sale of shabu was in progress at the house of appellant Joel Gaspar (Gaspar). Upon reaching the house, the police officers saw Gaspar and Leomar San Antonio (San Antonio) just outside the door. After San Antonio left Gaspar‘s house, the police officers stopped him and asked, ―Anong inabot sa iyo?‖ San Antonio replied, ―Bakit?‖ The police officers said, ―Pulis kami.‖ San Antonio opened his hand and there was a sachet of shabu. The police officers immediately arrested San Antonio. PO1 Soreta, the poseur-buyer then approached Gaspar, who was already about to enter the house, and told him ―Joel pa- iskor naman ng dalawang piso.‖ Gaspar went out and asked for payment. After receiving the amount of P200.00, Gaspar took out from his right pocket a small transparent plastic sachet and handed it to PO1 Soreta. PO1 Soreta introduced himself as a police officer and arrested and handcuffed Gaspar. The police officers recovered from Gaspar‘s possession two other small transparent plastic sachets, as well as drug paraphernalia inside the house, which were in plain view from the widely open door. Gaspar and San Antonio were brought to the Police Station for investigation and filing of charges. The plastic sachets and drug paraphernalia recovered were appropriately marked and brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. PO1 Soreta also executed an Affidavit of Arrest narrating the circumstances which led to Gaspar‘s apprehension. Based on Chemistry Report the recovered sachets were found positive for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride also known as ―shabu‖. Four separate Informations for different violations of RA 9165 were filed. Three informations were against Gaspar and one was against San Antonio. At the pre-trial conference, the prosecution and defense entered into stipulations of facts regarding the due execution and genuineness of the recovered items marked in evidence.

Load more

  128

Copy Link