Case Digest (G.R. No. 199018)
Facts:
Rolando Dacanay y Lacaste v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 199018, September 27, 2017, First Division, Leonardo‑De Castro, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Rolando Dacanay y Lacaste was charged by Information dated October 24, 2002 with illegal possession of dangerous drugs in violation of Article II, Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165. He pleaded not guilty at arraignment on December 11, 2002 and went to trial before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong City, Branch 209, Criminal Case No. MC02‑6030‑D.The prosecution presented Police Senior Inspector Annalee R. Forro (forensic chemist), Task Force Anti‑Vice (TFAV) member Raylan G. Genguyon (arresting officer), and documentary exhibits including Genguyon’s Sworn Statement and Arrest Report, PO3 Cortes’s laboratory request, and Chemistry Report No. D‑2096‑02E confirming that the seized white crystalline substance was methamphetamine hydrochloride ("shabu"). Testimony established that on October 23, 2002 TFAV members observed a man identified as petitioner holding a small transparent sachet; petitioner allegedly attempted to flee and to discard the sachet while boarding a tricycle; Genguyon recovered the sachet, marked it “RG,” and handed it to the team leader, and the specimen was later submitted for laboratory analysis.
Petitioner testified in his own behalf, denying ownership of the sachet and claiming a frame‑up: he said a TFAV member picked up the sachet from about a meter away and then accused and handcuffed him. The defense asserted the arrest and search were warrantless and unlawful, and urged insufficient proof beyond reasonable doubt. On July 16, 2006 the RTC found petitioner guilty; it sentenced him and ordered forfeiture of the specimen. The Court of Appeals, in CA‑G.R. CR. No. 30826, affirmed the conviction in a Decision dated May 26, 2011.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court before the Supreme C...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in failing to rule that petitioner was illegally arrested and illegally searched by members of the Task Force Anti‑Vice Unit.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Article II, Section 11 of Repu...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)