Scribd
Upload
96 views2 pages

G.R. No. 126252 August 30, 1999 People of The Philippines, Jesus Garcia Y Manabat Facts

The appellant Jesus Garcia was convicted of illegal possession of five kilos of marijuana. He claimed that the police officers arbitrarily detained him in violation of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. However, the court found that the police acted reasonably and lawfully in their investigation and arrest of the appellant. Specifically, the police followed the appellant after smelling marijuana on the jeepney to verify their suspicions before making the arrest when they saw marijuana in his bag. They also did not arbitrarily detain the appellant at the CIS office, but rather acted within the law during their investigation of the crime. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant was upheld.

Uploaded by

Milo LA
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
96 views2 pages

G.R. No. 126252 August 30, 1999 People of The Philippines, Jesus Garcia Y Manabat Facts

The appellant Jesus Garcia was convicted of illegal possession of five kilos of marijuana. He claimed that the police officers arbitrarily detained him in violation of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. However, the court found that the police acted reasonably and lawfully in their investigation and arrest of the appellant. Specifically, the police followed the appellant after smelling marijuana on the jeepney to verify their suspicions before making the arrest when they saw marijuana in his bag. They also did not arbitrarily detain the appellant at the CIS office, but rather acted within the law during their investigation of the crime. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant was upheld.

Uploaded by

Milo LA
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

G.R. No.

126252

August 30, 1999

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. JESUS GARCIA !ANA"AT FACTS# For review is the conviction of accused-appellant JESUS GARCIA !A"A#A$ for ille%al possession of five &'( )ilos of *ari+uana for which he was initiall sentenced to death. $hat on or a,out the -.th da of "ove*,er, /001, in the Cit of #a%uio, 2hilippines, and within the +urisdiction of this 3onora,le Court, the a,ove-na*ed accused, did then and there willfull , unlawfull and feloniousl have in his possession, custod and control five &'( )ilos of co*pressed *ari+uana dried leaves, without the authorit of law to do so. $he prosecutions case hin%es on the testi*on of Senior Inspector 45I6ER E"!47IAS. 3e recounted that on "ove*,er -., /001, he and S248 J4SE 2A"GA"I#A" ,oarded a passen%er +eepne fro* their office in Ca*p 7an%wa, 5a $rinidad, #en%uet, en route to #a%uio Cit . 3e too) the seat ,ehind the +eepne driver while S248 2an%ani,an sat opposite hi*. $he were in civilian attire. 9hen the +eepne reached :*. 1 or ', accused JESUS GARCIA ,oarded the +eepne carr in% a plastic ,a%. 3e occupied the front seat, ,eside the driver and placed the plastic ,a% on his lap. After a couple of *inutes, the police*en s*elled *ari+uana which see*ed to e*anate fro* accused;s ,a%. $o confir* their suspicion, the decided to follow accused when he %ets off the +eepne . $he accused ali%hted at the #a%uio cit hall and the police officers trailed hi*. $he accused proceeded to Ri<al 2ar) and sat , the *onu*ent. 3alf a *eter awa , the police officers saw the accused retrieve a %reen travellin% ,a% fro* the ,ac) poc)et of his pants. 3e then transferred five &'( pac)a%es wrapped in newspaper fro* the plastic ,a% to the %reen ,a%. As the newspaper wrapper of one of the pac)a%es was partiall torn, the police officers saw the content of the pac)a%e. It appeared to ,e *ari+uana. Forthwith, the police*en approached the accused and identified the*selves. $he accused appeared to ,e nervous and did not i**ediatel respond. $he police*en then as)ed the accused if the could inspect his travellin% ,a%. $he accused surrendered his ,a% and the inspection revealed that it contained five &'( ,ric)s of what appeared to ,e dried *ari+uana leaves. $he police officers then arrested the accused and sei<ed his ,a%. $he accused ad*itted ,ein% at the locus criminis ,ut denied possessin% *ari+uana or carr in% an ,a%. 3e alle%ed that on said da , at a,out .=>> a.*., he left his residence in An%eles Cit to visit his ,rother, "IC: GARCIA, who* he had not seen for ten &/>( ears. 3e arrived in #a%uio Cit at /-=8> p.*. #efore proceedin% to his ,rother;s house, he too) a stroll at the Ri<al 2ar). At a,out -=>> p.*., two &-( *en accosted hi* at the par). $he did not identif the*selves as police officers. $he held his hands and ordered hi* to %o with the*. 7espite his protestations, he was forci,l ta)en to a waitin% car and ,rou%ht to a safehouse. $here, he was as)ed a,out the source of his suppl of illicit dru%s. 9hen he denied )nowled%e of the cri*e i*puted to hi*, he was ,rou%ht to a dar) roo* where his hands were tied, his feet ,ound to a chair, his *outh covered , tape and his e es ,lindfolded. $he started *aulin% hi*. Initiall , he clai*ed he was )ic)ed and punched on the chest and thi%hs. 9hen as)ed further whether he suffered ,ruises and ,ro)en ri,s, he answered in the ne%ative. $hereafter, he e?plained that there were no visi,le si%ns of ph sical a,use on his ,od as he was onl punched, not )ic)ed. "otwithstandin% the

*altreat*ent he suffered, the accused clai*ed he stood fir* on his denial that he was dealin% with illicit dru%s. ISSUE# 9hether or not the police is %uilt of ar,itrar detention &Art. /-' R2C( HEL$# Firstly, appellant pointed out that if the police officers indeed s*ell and the *ari+uana he was alle%edl carr in% while the were all on ,oard the +eepne , the should have i**ediatel arrested hi* instead of waitin% for hi* to ali%ht and stroll at the Ri<al 2ar). Secondly, appellant faulted the procedure adopted , the arrestin% officers who, after the arrest, too) hi* to the CIS office at the #a%uio 9ater 7istrict Co*pound for investi%ation instead of ,rin%in% hi* to the nearest police station, as *andated under Section ', Rule //8 of the Rules on Cri*inal 2rocedure. Finally, appellant theori<ed that the prosecution;s o*ission or failure to present the other arrestin% officer, S248 2an%ani,an, to corro,orate the testi*on of its witness Senior Inspector En*odias was fatal to the prosecution;s case as the lone testi*on of En*odias failed to prove his %uilt ,e ond reasona,le dou,t. $hese contentions of appellant fail to persuade. $he police officers, without co*pro*isin% their sworn dut to enforce the law, the police officers e?ercised reasona,le prudence and caution in desistin% to apprehend appellant inside the +eepne when the initiall suspected he was in possession of *ari+uana. $he sou%ht to verif further their suspicion and decided to trail appellant when the latter ali%hted fro* the +eepne . It was onl after the saw that one of the pac)a%es with the torn wrapper contained what loo)ed li)e *ari+uana fruitin% tops did the accost appellant and *a)e the arrest. At that precise ti*e, the had o,tained personal )nowled%e of circu*stances indicatin% that appellant had illicit dru%s in his possession. $he had reasona,le %round upon which to ,ase a lawful arrest without a warrant. "either can the police officers ,e held lia,le for ar,itraril detainin% appellant at the CIS office. Article /-' of the Revised 2enal Code, as a*ended, penali<es a pu,lic officer who shall detain another for so*e le%al %round and fail to deliver hi* to the proper authorities for 8@ hours for cri*es punisha,le , afflictive or capital penalties.

You might also like