People v. Hindoy

PEOPLE v. HINDOY  RTC: Guilty for violating Sections 4 and 8, Article II of Republic Act No.
6425, as
May 10, 2001|Davide Jr., C.J. | Comprehensive Drugs Act amended by Section 13 of Republic Act No. 7659.
Digester: Yee, Jenine
RULING: Affirmed.
SUMMARY: An informant came to the police station and reported that accused
Hindoy and Bella would be receiving a shipment of illegal drugs. The policemen Whether Accused Hindoy and Bella guilty of illegal sale—YES.
conducted a buy-bust operation at the address given. When the sale was completed, the  The evidence for the prosecution fully proved beyond reasonable doubt the
men identified themselves as police. They entered the house and found bags of elements necessary to successfully prosecute a case for the illegal sale of a
marijuana. NBI confirmed that the drugs were marijuana. Trial court convicted the prohibited drug, namely, (a) identity of the buyer and the seller, the object,
accused and Bella of illegal sale and possession of prohibited drugs. SC affirmed. and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the things sold and the
DOCTRINE: Evidence for the prosecution fully proved beyond reasonable doubt the payment therefor.
elements necessary to successfully prosecute a case for the illegal sale of a prohibited
drug, namely, (a) identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; Identity of object
and (b) the delivery of the things sold and the payment therefor.  After chemical analysis by an NBI forensics expert, the thirteen (13) blocks of
suspected marijuana, with a combined weight of 13.05 kilograms, which were
Possession of marijuana is absorbed in the sale thereof, except where the seller is further found in and seized from the residence of BELLA, were determined to be genuine
apprehended in possession of another quantity of the prohibited drugs not covered by marijuana.
or included in the sale and which are probably intended for some future dealings or use Identity of sellers
by the seller.  The identity of ENRIQUE and BELLA as the sellers and possessors of the seized
marijuana cannot be doubted, for they were caught in flagrante delicto in a standard
FACTS: police buy-bust operation. Such positive identification prevails over their feeble
 At around 2 a.m., a woman informant came to the station and reported that a denial and declaration that the abaca bag which contained twelve blocks of
certain Bella of Mandaluyong, would be receiving a shipment of illegal drugs that marijuana was only left to their custody by a certain Marlyn
day. On the strength of that information, SPO4 Antiojo organized a team that
would conduct a buy-bust operation. Whether Accused guilty of illegal possession of prohibited drugs—YES.
 At around 3 a.m., the Criminal Investigation Team, headed by Antiojo himself and  Likewise, the trial court did not err when it convicted ENRIQUE and BELLA of
guided by the woman informant, went to said address. Two men acted as poseur- illegal possession of prohibited drugs punishable under Section 8 of R.A. No. 6425,
buyers, while the others served as backup. They knocked on the door and BELLAs as amended. In People v. Lacerna, possession of marijuana is absorbed in the
live-in partner Accused Hindoy opened it. sale thereof, except where the seller is further apprehended in possession of
 Eugenio (police) said, May bagong dating, kukuha kami (If theres new stuff, well get another quantity of the prohibited drugs not covered by or included in the
some), referring to marijuana. Accused Hindoy answered, Meron (Yes, there is) so sale and which are probably intended for some future dealings or use by the
Eugenio gave him one P500.00 and five P100.00 marked bills. seller.
 After counting the money, Accused asked BELLA to get the stuff. She complied  The records, indeed, reveal that aside from selling one block of marijuana to the
and brought a brick of marijuana, with an estimated weight of one kilogram, which arresting officers, accused-appellants were also caught in possession of another
was wrapped in newspaper. 12.04 kilograms of marijuana in twelve individually wrapped blocks, hidden in a bag
 Accused, in turn, handed it over to Eugenio (police). That was when they identified under a table in their house. Their possession thereof gives rise to a disputable
themselves as police officers. presumption under Section 3[j], Rule 131 of the Rules of Court
 After giving the prearranged signal to the backup operatives, he and Cariaga
entered the house then announced that they were going to conduct a search. Under NOTES:
a table, they found a bag made of abaca containing twelve more bricks of Whether the evidence was admissible—YES.
marijuana. The evidence was marked then turned over to Prianes, who transmitted  It is true that under Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, The right of the
the same to the NBI for chemical analysis. people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
 NBI: Specimens submitted is marijuana. unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purposes shall
 The accused where charged with two violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act of be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
1972. 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. It is equally true that any evidence obtained in violation of such right shall
be inadmissible in evidence.[30] This right, however, is not without exceptions, as in
instances of searches incidental to lawful arrests. Under paragraph (a), Section 5,
Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, a peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest a
person when in his presence the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.
 In the case at bar, upon consummation of the illicit sale, PO3 Eugenio introduced
himself and SPO1 Cariaga as police officers. ENRIQUE and BELLA were
apprised of their constitutional rights. Thereafter, the officers searched the room
where BELLA supposedly got the first block of marijuana. There, they found an
abaca bag under a folding table. Upon inspection, the bag yielded twelve more
blocks of compressed marijuana inside a plastic bag.[31] The trial court, therefore,
was correct in admitting all thirteen blocks of marijuana in evidence.

People v. Hindoy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Hindoy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Hindoy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE v. HINDOY  RTC: Guilty for violating Sections 4 and 8, Article II of Republic Act No.

You might also like