Case Digest (G.R. No. 136066-67)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Binad Sy Chua, G.R. Nos. 136066-67, February 04, 2003, First Division, Ynares-Santiago, J., writing for the Court. The case arose from two Informations filed against accused-appellant Binad Sy Chua: Criminal Case No. 96-507 for alleged possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) totaling about 1.955 kilograms and 13.815 grams, and Criminal Case No. 96-513 for illegal possession of twenty (20) .22 caliber live ammunitions. He pleaded not guilty and the cases were tried jointly before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 59, Angeles City.The prosecution's witnesses—all Angeles City police officers—testified that on the night of September 21, 1996 a confidential informant reported that Chua would deliver drugs at the Thunder Inn Hotel. A police team conducted surveillance; when Chua arrived and alighted from his car carrying a sealed Zest-O juice box, SPO2 Mario Nulud and PO2 Emmeraldo Nunag accosted him. As Chua pulled out his wallet a small transparent bag protruded from his back pocket; a body search allegedly produced 20 rounds of .22 ammunition from his left back pocket, and inspection of the Zest-O box revealed crystalline substances. The officers seized the items, brought them to Col. Gutierrez at PNP headquarters where a field test was done, and later turned the items over to the crime laboratory at Camp Olivas; S/Insp. Daisy Babor tested and declared the substances positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Chua denied the prosecution's version, testifying he was following his wife and son, stopped at a store, and was accosted by a man who identified himself as a policeman and who searched him and his car; Chua said he was held at the station and made to hold the box while photographs were taken in the presence of media. A civilian witness, Wilfredo Lagman, corroborated material points of Chua's account.
The RTC rendered judgment on September 15, 1998: it acquitted Chua in Criminal Case No. 96-513 (ammo) for insufficiency of evidence, but convicted him in Criminal Case No. 96-507...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the warrantless arrest and consequent search and seizure of accused-appellant lawful and the seized items admissible in evidence?
- If the warrantless arrest and search were unlawful or the seized items inadmissible, was the prosecution able to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt for...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)