Case Digest (G.R. No. 171980)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Olive Rubio Mamaril, G.R. No. 171980, October 06, 2010, First Division, Perez, J., writing for the Court. The appeal was taken via notice of appeal pursuant to Section 2(c) of Rule 122 of the Rules of Court.The prosecution charged Olive Rubio Mamaril with possession of dangerous drugs in violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. On 25 March 2003 at about 9:30 p.m., SPO4 Alexis Gotidoc together with Intel operatives of the Tarlac City Police Station and personnel of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) executed Search Warrant No. 144C (dated 18 March 2003) at appellant’s residence in Zone 1, Barangay Maliwalo, Tarlac City. The police invited Barangay Kagawad Oscar Tabamo to witness the search, presented the warrant, and informed appellant of the search and her rights.
During the search, SPO4 Gotidoc allegedly found on top of the refrigerator one plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance. The police prepared a Certificate of Good Search and a Confiscation Receipt, which appellant refused to sign. The seized item was submitted to the Tarlac Provincial Crime Laboratory; forensic chemist Engr. Marcene G. Agala reported a positive result for 0.055 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride (“shabu”).
Appellant maintained that the police first searched her house without finding anything, then searched a separate hut where the sachet was discovered; she alleged the police framed her and extorted her—officers allegedly promised to refrain from filing charges for P20,000, which she could not pay. On cross-examination she admitted she did not report the alleged extortion to higher police authorities.
An Information was filed charging unlawful possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride (approx. 0.055 g). Appellant pleaded not guilty. On 21 April 2004 the trial court found her guilty under RA 9165, Sec. 11 and sentenced her accordingly. The Court of Appeals in CA‑G.R. CR. No. 28482 (Decision dated 31 August 2005, penned by Justice Tolentino) affirmed the conviction, holding the search and seizure legal and the seized drugs admissible. Appellant brough...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May the Supreme Court consider appellant’s contention that the search warrant lacked probable cause though that contention was raised for the first time on appeal?
- Was the search warrant supported by probable cause so that the search and seizure were lawful and the seized methamphetamine admissible?
- Did the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties improperly displace the constitutional presumption of innocence with ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)