FIRST DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
147607
January 22, 2004
-versus-
BENHUR MAMARIL,
Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
AZCUNA,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Before us is a petition
for review on certiorari of the decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Lingayen, Pangasinan, Branch 39, in Criminal Case No. L-5963, finding
appellant
Benhur Mamaril guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 8[1]
of Republic Act (RA) No. 6425, as amended by RA No. 7659.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Information filed
against appellant reads:
That on or about the
1st day of February, 1999 and sometime prior thereto, in the
municipality
of Lingayen, province of Pangasinan, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, willfully, unlawfully
and criminally [did] keep and possess crushed marijuana leaves
contained
in seventy eight (78) sachets with a total weight of two hundred thirty
six and eighty three hundredth (236.83) grams and two (2) bricks of
marijuana
fruiting tops weighing one thousand six hundred grams, each brick
weighing
eight hundred (800) grams, with a total weight of one thousand eight
hundred
thirty six and eighty three hundredth (1,836.83) grams, a prohibited
drug,
without authority to possess the same.cralaw:red
CONTRARY to Sec. 8 of
R.A. 6425, as amended by R.A. 7659, otherwise known as the Dangerous
Drugs
Act of 1972.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
When arraigned on October
8, 1999, appellant pleaded not guilty.[3]
At the pre-trial conference held on October 18, 1999, the parties
admitted
the following facts:
1. That the search was
made in the house and premises of the parents of the accused where he
(accused)
also lives, at Ramos St., Lingayen, Pangasinan, on February 1, 1999 at
about 2:30 o’ clock in the afternoon;
2. That the search was
conducted by the elements of the PNP particularly SPO4 Faustino Ferrer,
SPO1 Alfredo Rico and others;
3. That the policemen
brought along with them a camera;
4. That the accused
was in the balcony of the house when it was searched;
5. The existence of
the report of physical science report No. (DT-077-99) issued by the PNP
Crime Laboratory through Chemist Theresa Ann Bugayong Cid;
6. That accused was
subjected to urine sample laboratory on February 2, 1999.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Thereafter, trial ensued.
The Prosecution’s
Evidence
On January 25, 1999,
the Intelligence Section PNCO of the Lingayen Police Station,
represented
by SPO2 Chito S. Esmenda, applied[5]
before the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan, Branch 39, for
a search warrant authorizing the search for marijuana, a prohibited
drug,
at the family residence of appellant Benhur Mamaril, situated at Ramos
Street, Poblacion, Lingayen, Pangasinan. On said date, then presiding
Executive
Judge Eugenio G. Ramos (now retired) issued Search Warrant No. 99-51.[6]
On February 1, 1999,
at about 2:30 p.m., the Chief of Police of the Lingayen Police Station,
SPO3 Alfredo Rico, SPO4 Faustino Ferrer, Jr. and other police officers
went to the residence of appellant and implemented Search Warrant No.
99-51.
When they arrived at appellant’s house, they saw appellant’s mother
under
the house. They asked her where appellant was, and she told them that
appellant
was in the house, upstairs. When they went upstairs, they saw appellant
coming out of the room. Upon seeing the policemen, appellant turned
back
and tried to run towards the back door. SPO3 Rico told appellant to
stop,
which appellant did. SPO3 Rico informed appellant that they had a
search
warrant to search the house premises. They showed appellant and his
mother
the search warrant. Appellant looked at the search warrant and did not
say anything. Thereafter, the policemen searched the house. The search
was witnessed by two members of the barangay council in said area,
namely,
Barangay Kagawad Leonardo Ramos and Barangay Tanod Valentino Quintos,
whom
the police brought with them.[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The searching team confiscated
the following: (1) fifty-five (55) heat-sealed plastic sachets
containing
suspected marijuana leaves, which were found in a buri bag ("bayong")
under
appellant’s house; (2) three heat-sealed plastic sachets containing
suspected
marijuana leaves and seeds contained in an eye-glass case; (3)
twenty-two
(22) heat-sealed plastic sachets containing suspected marijuana leaves
and seeds taken under a pillow placed on a monobloc chair; and (4) two
(2) bricks of suspected marijuana contained inside a white and gray bag
found inside the closet of appellant’s room. SPO3 Alfredo Rico took
pictures[8]
of the confiscated items and prepared a receipt[9]
of the property seized. SPO4 Faustino Ferrer, Jr. prepared a
certification[10]
that the house was properly searched, which was signed by appellant and
the barangay officials who witnessed the search. After the search, the
police officers brought appellant and the confiscated articles to the
Lingayen
Police Station and turned them over to the desk officer.[11]
The next day, on February
2, 1999, police officers Alfredo Rico, Alberto Santiago and Rodolfo
Madrid
brought the confiscated articles to the Crime Laboratory at Camp
Florendo,
San Fernando, La Union for examination. Appellant was also brought
there
for a drug test.[12]
Police Superintendent
Ma. Theresa Ann Bugayong Cid, forensic chemist and head of the PNP
Crime
Laboratory, Regional Office I, Camp Florendo, Parian, San Fernando
City,
La Union, testified that on February 2, 1999, she received from the
Chief
of Police of Lingayen, Pangasinan, a request[13]
for a drug test on the person of appellant Benhur Mamaril and a
laboratory
examination of the confiscated specimens.[14]
After weighing the specimens and testing the same, Police
Superintendent
Cid issued a report[15]
finding the specimens[16]
to be "POSITIVE to the test for the presence of marijuana x x x."[17]
Moreover, Police Superintendent
Cid affirmed the findings in her report[18]
that the examination conducted on the urine sample of appellant was
positive
for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride known as "shabu."[19]
After the prosecution
formally offered its testimonial and documentary exhibits on March 5,
2000,
appellant, through his counsel, filed a motion with memorandum[20]
contending that: (1) the exhibits of the prosecution are inadmissible
in
evidence under Section 2 and Section 3 (2) of Article III (Bill of
Rights)
of the 1987 Constitution as the search warrant, by virtue of which said
exhibits were seized, was illegally issued, considering that the
judge’s
examination of the complainant and his two witnesses was not in
writing;
and (2) said search warrant was illegally or improperly implemented.
Appellant
prayed that all the exhibits of the prosecution be excluded as evidence
or in the alternative, that the resolution of the admissibility of the
same be deferred until such time that he has completed the presentation
of his evidence in chief. On August 25, 2000, the prosecution opposed
the
motion, and the trial court denied appellant’s motion.[21]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Defense’s
Evidence
Appellant Benhur Mamaril,
31, single, laborer, denied that he was residing at his parents’ house
at Ramos Street, Lingayen, Pangasinan since he has been residing at a
rented
house at Barangay Matic-matic, Sta. Barbara, Pangasinan since December
18, 1998. Appellant declared that on February 1, 1999, it was his
brother
and the latter’s family who were residing with his mother at Ramos
Street,
but on said day, his brother and family were not in the house since
they
were at the fishpond.[22]
Appellant testified
that on February 1, 1999, he was at his parents’ house at Ramos Street,
Lingayen, Pangasinan, because he and his live-in partner visited his
mother
on said day and arrived there at 10:00 a.m. At about 2:00 p.m. of
February
1, 1999, while appellant was at the back of his parents’ house, about
seven
to nine policemen, in civilian clothes, arrived. The policemen asked
appellant
to go upstairs and they immediately handcuffed him and brought him to
the
balcony of the house. He stayed at the balcony until the search was
finished
after more than 30 minutes. Thereafter, he was brought to the clinic of
one Dr. Felix and a medical examination was conducted on him. Then he
was
brought to the municipal hall.[23]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant testified
that he saw the buri bag, the eye-glass case, and the gray and white
bag
containing suspected marijuana for the first time on the day of the
search
when he was at the balcony of their house. He also testified that he
saw
the Receipt of Property Seized for the first time while he was
testifying
in court. He admitted that the signature on the certification that the
house was properly searched was his.[24]
Moreover, appellant
testified that in the early morning of February 2, 1999, he was brought
to the PNP Crime Laboratory in San Fernando, La Union where he gave his
urine sample. Appellant insinuated that the confiscated items were only
planted because he had a misunderstanding with some policemen in
Lingayen.
However, he admitted that the policemen who searched his parents’ house
did not threaten or harm him in any way and he had no misunderstanding
with SPO3 Alfredo Rico.[25]
Atty. Enrico O. Castillo,
Branch Clerk of Court, RTC-Branch 39, Lingayen, Pangasinan, was
requested
to testify on the available records regarding Search Warrant No. 99-51
on file in the trial court and to identify said documents. Atty.
Castillo
testified that he only had with him the application for search warrant,
the supporting affidavits of PO3 Alberto Santiago and Diosdado
Fernandez
and the return of the search warrant.[26]
Atty. Enrico declared
that before he assumed office as Branch Clerk of Court, the person
supposed
to be in custody of any transcript of the searching questions and
answers
made by Executive Judge Eugenio G. Ramos in connection with the
application
for Search Warrant No. 99-51 was Mrs. Liberata Ariston, who was then a
legal researcher and at the same time OIC-Branch Clerk of Court.
However,
during the trial of this case, Mrs. Liberata Ariston was in the United
States of America. Atty. Enrico averred that he asked Mrs. Liberata
Ariston’s
daughter, Catherine Ramirez, who is a court stenographer, about said
transcript,
but it has not been found. Atty. Enrico testified that based on the
records,
there is no stenographic notes. He added that they tried their best to
locate the subject transcript, but they could not find it.[27]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Trial Court’s
Decision
On January 23, 2001,
the trial court rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which
reads:
WHEREFORE, the prosecution
having established beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused of
the crime of possession of marijuana defined and penalized under
Section
8 of RA 6425, as amended, this Court in the absence of any modifying
circumstances,
hereby sentences said accused to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION
PERPETUA
and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000), plus costs
of this suit.cralaw:red
The period of preventive
imprisonment suffered by the accused shall be credited in full in
service
of his sentence in accordance with Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.[28]
The Appeal
Appellant contends that
the trial court made the following errors:
I
THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED
IN NOT DECLARING AS INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE THE ARTICLES ALLEGEDLY
SEIZED
FROM ACCUSED-APPELLANT CONSIDERING THAT SEARCH WARRANT NO. 99-51 WAS
ILLEGALLY
ISSUED.
II
THE TRIAL COURT
LIKEWISE
ERRED IN NOT DECLARING AS TOTALLY INADMISSIBLE THE INVENTORIED ARTICLES
IN THE RECEIPT OF SEIZED PROPERTY AND THE CORRESPONDING CERTIFICATION
ISSUED
THERETO
(EXHS. "J" AND "I") SINCE THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT WAS NOT ASSISTED BY
COUNSEL
WHEN HE SIGNED THE SAME.
III
THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED
IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FACT
THAT
HIS GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[29]
Appellant prays for
his acquittal on the ground that Search Warrant No. 99-51 was illegally
issued considering that there was no evidence showing that the required
searching questions and answers were made anent the application for
said
search warrant. Appellant pointed out that Branch Clerk of Court Enrico
O. Castillo testified that based on the records, there was no
transcript
of stenographic notes of the proceedings in connection with the
application
for said search warrant. Appellant thus asserts that it cannot be said
that the judge made searching questions upon the alleged applicant and
his witnesses, which is in violation of Section 2, Article III of the
Constitution
and Section 5, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court.
Our Ruling
Appellant’s contention
is meritorious.
The right against unreasonable
searches and seizures is guaranteed under Article III, Section 2, of
the
Constitution, thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Sec. 2. The right of
the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects
against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
purpose
shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall
issue
except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge
after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses
he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched
and
the persons or things to be seized.cralaw:red
Said Constitutional
provision is implemented under Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, thus:
Sec. 4. Requisites for
issuing search warrant. – A search warrant shall not issue except upon
probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of
the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
describing
the place to be searched and the things to be seized which may be
anywhere
in the Philippines.cralaw:red
Sec. 5. Examination
of complainant; record. -- The judge must, before issuing the warrant,
personally examine in the form of searching questions and answers, in
writing
and under oath, the complainant and the witnesses he may produce on
facts
personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn
statements,
together with the affidavits submitted.cralaw:red
Under the above provisions,
the issuance of a search warrant is justified only upon a finding of
probable
cause. Probable cause for a search has been defined as such facts and
circumstances
which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that
an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection
with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.[30]
In determining the existence of probable cause, it is required that:
(1)
the judge must examine the complainant and his witnesses personally;
(2)
the examination must be under oath; and (3) the examination must be
reduced
in writing in the form of searching questions and answers.[31]
Atty. Enrico O. Castillo,
Branch Clerk of Court, RTC-Branch 39 of Lingayen, Pangasinan, who was
requested
to testify on the available records kept in their office regarding
Search
Warrant No. 99-51, presented before the court only the application for
search warrant[32]
and the supporting affidavits[33]
of PO3 Alberto Santiago and Diosdado Fernandez. Atty. Castillo could
not
produce the sworn statements of the complainant and his witnesses
showing
that the judge examined them in the form of searching questions and
answers
in writing as required by law. Atty. Castillo testified, thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x x
x
x x x x x x
Q Would you admit that
from the records available there is no transcript of the proceedings of
a searching questions and answers made by the Executive Judge upon the
complainant as well as the two (2) witnesses not only in connection
with
application for Search Warrant 99-51 but in all of those application
covered
by that record namely, 99-49, 99-50, 99-51, 99-52, 99-53 and 99-54?
A Sir, based on the
records there is no transcript of [s]tenographic notes.cralaw:red
Q Did you not ask Catherine
Ramirez, the daughter of then OIC-Mrs. Liberata Ariston about said
transcript?
A I asked her for several
times, sir, and in fact I asked her again yesterday and she told me
that
she will try to find on (sic) the said transcript.cralaw:red
Q But until now there
is no transcript yet?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q Because according
to the rules the transcript must be attached to the records of this
case
together with the application for search warrant as well as the
supporting
affidavit of the said application, but there is no records available to
have it with you and there is no proof with you?
A Because during the
time I assumed the office, sir, the records in the store room which
they
placed is topsy turvy and all the records are scattered. So, we are
having
a hard time in scanning the records, sir.cralaw:red
Q But did you not try
your very best assisted by the Court personnel to locate said
transcript,
Mr. Witness?
A Sir, we tried our
best but based on the transcript I can not just read the said
transcript.cralaw:red
Q You mean to say you
were able to [find] the stenographic notes?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A No, sir. There are
stenographic notes but they are not yet transcribed, sir.cralaw:red
Q That is by a machine
steno?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q Did you not ask the
assistance of the co-stenographers in your sala who are using the
machine
steno to identify what cases does that stenographic notes (sic)?
A Sir, I was assisted
by some stenographers but we can (sic) not find the transcript of
stenographic
notes concerning Search Warrant No. 99-49 to 99-54.[34]
(Underscoring ours)
Based on the above testimony
and the other evidence on record, the prosecution failed to prove that
Executive Judge Eugenio G. Ramos put into writing his examination of
the
applicant and his witnesses in the form of searching questions and
answers
before issuance of the search warrant. The records only show the
existence
of an application[35]
for a search warrant and the affidavits[36]
of the complainant’s witnesses. In Mata v. Bayona,[37]
we held:
Mere affidavits of the
complainant and his witnesses are thus not sufficient. The examining
Judge
has to take depositions in writing of the complainant and the witnesses
he may produce and to attach them to the record. Such written
deposition
is necessary in order that the Judge may be able to properly determine
the existence or non-existence of the probable cause, to hold liable
for
perjury the person giving it if it will be found later that his
declarations
are false.cralaw:red
We, therefore, hold
that the search warrant is tainted with illegality by the failure of
the
Judge to conform with the essential requisites of taking the
depositions
in writing and attaching them to the record, rendering the search
warrant
invalid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We cannot give credit
to the argument of the Solicitor General that the issuing judge
examined
under oath, in the form of searching questions and answers, the
applicant
SPO2 Chito S. Esmenda and his witnesses on January 25, 1999 as it is so
stated in Search Warrant No. 99-51. Although it is possible that Judge
Ramos examined the complainant and his witnesses in the form of
searching
questions and answers, the fact remains that there is no evidence that
the examination was put into writing as required by law. Otherwise, the
depositions in writing of the complainant and his witnesses would have
been attached to the record, together with the affidavits that the
witnesses
submitted, as required by Section 5, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court.
Consequently,
we find untenable the assertion of the Solicitor General that the
subject
stenographic notes could not be found at the time Branch Clerk of Court
Enrico Castillo testified before the trial court because of the
confused
state of the records in the latter’s branch when he assumed office.cralaw:red
The Solicitor General
also argues that appellant is deemed to have waived his right to
question
the legality of the search because he did not protest against it, and
even
admitted during his testimony that he was neither threatened nor
maltreated
by the policemen who searched their residence.cralaw:red
We disagree. The cases[38]
cited by the Solicitor General involved a warrantless search. In this
case,
the police authorities presented a search warrant to appellant before
his
residence was searched. At that time, appellant could not determine if
the search warrant was issued in accordance with the law. It was only
during
the trial of this case that appellant, through his counsel, had reason
to believe that the search warrant was illegally issued causing
appellant
to file a motion with memorandum objecting to the admissibility of the
evidence formally offered by the prosecution. In People v. Burgos,[39]
we ruled:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Neither can it be presumed
that there was a waiver, or that consent was given by the accused to be
searched simply because he failed to object. To constitute a waiver, it
must appear first that the right exists; secondly, that the person
involved
had knowledge, actual or constructive, of the existence of such a
right;
and lastly, that said person had an actual intention to relinquish the
right. (Pasion Vda. de Garcia v. Locsin, 65 Phil. 689). The fact that
the
accused failed to object to the entry into his house does not amount to
a permission to make a search therein (Magoncia v. Palacio, 80 Phil.
770).
As pointed out by Justice Laurel in the case of Pasion Vda. de Garcia
v.
Locsin (supra):
x x
x
x x x x x x
"x x x As the constitutional
guaranty is not dependent upon any affirmative act of the citizen, the
courts do not place the citizen in the position of either contesting an
officer’s authority by force, or waiving his constitutional rights; but
instead they hold that a peaceful submission to a search or seizure is
not a consent, or an invitation thereto, but is merely a demonstration
of regard for the supremacy of the law. (56 C.J., pp.1180, 1181)."
We apply the rule that:
"courts indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver of
fundamental
constitutional rights and that we do not presume acquiescence in the
loss
of fundamental rights." (Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458).cralaw:red
In this case, we construe
the silence of appellant at the time the policemen showed him the
search
warrant as a demonstration of regard for the supremacy of the law.
Moreover,
appellant seasonably objected[40]
on constitutional grounds to the admissibility of the evidence seized
pursuant
to said warrant during the trial of the case,[41]
after the prosecution formally offered its evidence.[42]
Under the circumstances, no intent to waive his rights can reasonably
be
inferred from his conduct before or during the trial.cralaw:red
No matter how incriminating
the articles taken from the appellant may be, their seizure cannot
validate
an invalid warrant.[43]
In Mata v. Bayona,[44]
we ruled:
[N]othing can justify
the issuance of the search warrant but the fulfillment of the legal
requisites.
It might be well to point out what has been said in Asian Surety &
Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Herrera:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
‘It has been said that
of all the rights of a citizen, few are of greater importance or more
essential
to his peace and happiness than the right of personal security, and
that
involves the exemption of his private affairs, books and papers from
inspection
and scrutiny of others. While the power to search and seize is
necessary
to the public welfare, still it must be exercised and the law enforced
without transgressing the constitutional rights of the citizens, for
the
enforcement of no statute is of sufficient importance to justify
indifference
to the basic principles of government.’
Thus, in issuing a search
warrant the Judge must strictly comply with the requirements of the
Constitution
and the statutory provisions. A liberal construction should be given in
favor of the individual to prevent stealthy encroachment upon, or
gradual
depreciation of the rights secured by the Constitution. No presumption
of regularity are to be invoked in aid of the process when an officer
undertakes
to justify it.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We, therefore, find
that the requirement mandated by the law that the examination of the
complainant
and his witnesses must be under oath and reduced to writing in the form
of searching questions and answers was not complied with, rendering the
search warrant invalid. Consequently, the evidence seized pursuant to
said
illegal search warrant cannot be used in evidence against appellant in
accordance with Section 3 (2),[45]
Article III of the Constitution.cralaw:red
It is unnecessary to
discuss the other issues raised by appellant in seeking to exclude the
evidence seized pursuant to said illegal search warrant.cralaw:red
Without the aforesaid
illegally obtained evidence, there is no sufficient basis to sustain
the
conviction of appellant.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the decision
of the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan, Branch 39, in
Criminal
Case No. L-5963, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Judgment is hereby rendered
declaring Search Warrant No. 99-51 NULL and VOID and the search and
seizure
made at appellant’s residence illegal. For lack of evidence to
establish
appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, appellant BENHUR MAMARIL is
hereby ACQUITTED and ordered RELEASED from confinement unless he is
being
held for some other legal grounds.cralaw:red
The Director of the
Bureau of Corrections is ORDERED to IMPLEMENT without delay this
Decision
and to INFORM this Court, within ten (10) days from receipt hereof, of
the date appellant was actually released from confinement.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The confiscated marijuana
is ORDERED forfeited in favor of the State and the trial court is
hereby
directed to deliver or cause its delivery to the Dangerous Drugs Board
for proper disposition.cralaw:red
Costs de oficio.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman),
Panganiban, Ynares-Santiago, and Carpio, JJ., concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
RA No. 6425, as amended, Sec. 8. Possession or Use of Prohibited Drugs.
– The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from
five
hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any
person,
who, unless authorized by law, shall possess or use any prohibited drug
subject to the provisions of section 20 hereof.
[2]
Records, p. 1.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Records, p. 34.
[4]
Pre-trial Order, Records, p. 45.
[5]
Application for Search Warrant, Records, p. 92.
[6]
Exh. "G," Records, p. 76.
[7]
TSN, February 14, 2000, pp. 2-10; February 21, 2000, p. 7.
[8]
Exhs. "K" to "K-6," Records, pp. 12-13.
[9]
Exh. "H," Records, p. 4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Exh. "I," Records, p. 5.
[11]
TSN, February 14, 2000. pp. 11, 14, 23-24; February 21, 2000, pp. 10-14.
[12]
TSN, February 14, 2000, pp. 24-25.
[13]
Records, p. 10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
TSN, November 5, 1999, pp. 2, 5-13.
[15]
Exh. "E," Records, p. 17.
[16]
Exh. "E-3," Records, p. 17.
[17]
Exh. "E-6," Records, p. 17; TSN, November 5, 1999, p. 13.
[18]
Exh. "F," Records, p. 18.
[19]
TSN, November 18, 1999, pp. 7-9.
[20]
Records, p. 84.
[21]
Records, p. 98.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
TSN, October 10, 2000, pp. 13-14, 28-29.
[23]
TSN, October 10, 2000, pp. 13-17.
[24]
TSN, October 10, 2000, pp. 16-18.
[25]
TSN, October 10, 2000, pp. 19-21, 25-27.
[26]
TSN, October 10, 2000, pp. 2-4.
[27]
TSN, October 10, 2000, pp. 7-10.
[28]
Rollo, p. 27.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
Rollo, pp. 43-44.
[30]
Pendon v. Court of Appeals, 191 SCRA 429, 437 (1990), citing Marinas v.
Sioco, 104 SCRA 403, 432 (1981); Ponsica v. Ignalaga, 152 SCRA 647, 664
(1987).
[31]
Pendon v. Court of Appeals, supra.
[32]
Exh. "1," Records, p. 92.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[33]
Exhs. "2" to "3," Records, pp. 93-94.
[34]
TSN, October 10, 2000, pp. 8-9.
[35]
Exh. "1," Records, p. 92.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[36]
Exhs. "2" to "3," Records, pp. 93-94.
[37]
128 SCRA 388, 391 (1984).
[38]
People v. Montilla, 285 SCRA 703 (1998); People v. Aruta, 288 SCRA 626
(1998).
[39]
144 SCRA 1 (1986).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[40]
Through a Motion with Memorandum, Records, p. 84.
[41]
Demaisip v. Court of Appeals, 193 SCRA 373 (1991).
[42]
Rules of Court, Rule 132, Sec. 36.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[43]
Pendon v. Court of Appeals, supra, note 30, at 441.
[44]
Supra, note 36, at 393.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[45]
The Constitution, Article III, Section 3 (2). Any evidence obtained in
violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for
any
purpose in any proceeding. |