CASE 2018-0019: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. BENITO PALARAS Y LAPU-OS (G.R. NO. 219582, 11 JULY 2018, MARTIRES, J.) (SUBJECT/S: DRUG CASE DISMISSED BY SC; WARRANTLESS ARREST VOIDED AND AS A CONSEQUENCE ITEMS SEIZED WRE NOT CONSIDERED AS EVIDENCE; WITNESSES DISCREDITED BECAUSE OF DISTANCE)  (BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS PALARAS)

  

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the Court of Appeals Decision, dated 29 January 2015, in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01758,affirming the 14 November 2013 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 69, Silay City, in Criminal Case Nos. 8561-69 and 8562-69, and ACQUITS accused-appellant BENITO PALARAS y LAPU-OS of the crimes charged in Criminal Case Nos. 8561-69 and 8562-69 on the ground of reasonable doubt. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is hereby ORDERED to immediately release accused-appellant BENITO PALARAS y LAPU-OS from custody unless he is being detained for some other lawful cause.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

IS THE NON-PRESENTATION OF THE POSEUR-BUYER FATAL IN DRUG CASE?

 

FATAL ONLY IF THERE IS NO OTHER EYEWITNESS.

 

IN THIS CASE THERE WERE EYEWITNESSES WHO WERE MEMBERS OF THE BUY-BUST TEAM. DID  THEIR TESTIMONY CURE THE NON-PRESENTATION OF THE POSEUR-BUYER.

 

NO BECAUSE THEIR DISTANCE RAISES DOUBT THAT THEY COULD CONFIRM THE ALLEGED SALE THAT TRANSPIRED.

 

“While it is true that the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer is fata only if there is no other eyewitness to the illicit transaction, 19 P02 Bernil and the other members of the buy-bust team cannot be considered as eyewitnesses to the illegal sale of drugs because their distance raises doubt that they could confirm whether what transpired was actually a sale, considering the legal characterizations20 of the act constituting the crime.

 

In People v. Amin,21 this Court did not deem as eyewitness account the testimony of the prosecution witnesses who were ten ( 10) meters away from the transaction. Similarly, in People v. Guzon,22 a police officer who admitted that he was seven (7) to eight (8) meters away from the actual transaction was not considered an eyewitness to the crime.”

 

WHAT DOES CONVICTION FOR ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF ILLEGAL DRUGS REQUIRE?

 

IT REQUIRES THE FOLLOWING:

 

 ( 1) THAT THE ACCUSED WAS IN POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS;

 

 (2) THAT SUCH POSSESSION WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW; AND

 

(3) THAT THE ACCUSED WAS FREELY AND CONSCIOUSLY AWARE OF BEING IN POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS

 

WAS THERE BASIS FOR THE WARRANTLESS ARREST?

 

NO BECAUSE THE SALE OF ILLEGAL DRUGS COULD NOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO ACCUSED.

 

WHAT IS THE CONSEQUENCE OF AN INVALID WARRANTLESS ARREST?

 

ANY ITEM IT YIELDED COULD NOT, THEREFORE, BE USED AS EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.27

 

WAS ACCUSED GUILTY OF POSSESSION OF THE DRUGS?

 

NO BECAUSE HIS ALLEGED POSSESSION WAS PREMISED ON HIS SALE WHICH WAS NOT PROVEN.

 

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

SCD-2018-0019-People of the Philippines Vs. Benito Palaras y Lapu-Os

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.