Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 450 views

    8 People Vs Ordiz

    Uploaded by

    mei atienza
    The Supreme Court acquitted Orlando Ramos Ordiz of drug charges. [1] Witnesses for the prosecution did not see the alleged drug transaction firsthand and their testimonies were unclear. [2] Moreover, the prosecution failed to establish proper chain of custody for the seized drug evidence. [3] There were no details provided on how the evidence was handled and examined by forensic experts, casting doubt on its identity and integrity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    8 People Vs Ordiz

    Uploaded by

    mei atienza
    450 views1 page
    The Supreme Court acquitted Orlando Ramos Ordiz of drug charges. [1] Witnesses for the prosecution did not see the alleged drug transaction firsthand and their testimonies were unclear. [2] Moreover, the prosecution failed to establish proper chain of custody for the seized drug evidence. [3] There were no details provided on how the evidence was handled and examined by forensic experts, casting doubt on its identity and integrity.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    8 People vs Ordiz

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court acquitted Orlando Ramos Ordiz of drug charges. [1] Witnesses for the prosecution did not see the alleged drug transaction firsthand and their testimonies were unclear. [2] Moreover, the prosecution failed to establish proper chain of custody for the seized drug evidence. [3] There were no details provided on how the evidence was handled and examined by forensic experts, casting doubt on its identity and integrity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    450 views1 page

    8 People Vs Ordiz

    Uploaded by

    mei atienza
    The Supreme Court acquitted Orlando Ramos Ordiz of drug charges. [1] Witnesses for the prosecution did not see the alleged drug transaction firsthand and their testimonies were unclear. [2] Moreover, the prosecution failed to establish proper chain of custody for the seized drug evidence. [3] There were no details provided on how the evidence was handled and examined by forensic experts, casting doubt on its identity and integrity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    8. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,, plaintiff-appellee vs.

    ORLANDO RAMOS ORDIZ,


    accused-appellant.

    [G.R. No. 206767. September 11, 2019.]

    FACTS:
    For allegedly selling a plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram of a white crystalline substance
    containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly called shabu, in a buy-bust operation
    conducted by members of the Philippine National Police (PNP) at about 1:00 p.m. at Sampaguita Street,
    Barangay Capitol Site, Cebu City, accused-appellant Ordiz was charged with violation of Section 5, Article
    II of RA 9165. As narrated by the PNP, Ordiz was reported to them to be selling shabu, so the police set
    up an entrapment operation to arrest him. The police narrated that Ordiz was arrested properly and in
    accordance with the law, and that the confiscation of the shabu was done in accordance with Sec. 21 of
    RA 9165. On the other hand, Ordiz narrated that he was eating at a nearby eatery where the police
    where eating at the table beside him. He narrated that the police told him to come over and asked him a
    few questions; that a few moments after more. Police arrived and took him to the police station and
    detained him without informing him of the nature of the charge against him.

    The RTC found Ortiz guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Section 5 of RA 9165. The CA affirmed
    the RTC’s conviction.

    ISSUE: Whether accused-appellant Ordiz is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime charged.

    HELD: No. In the instant case, the prosecution relied on the testimonies of its three witnesses, i.e.,
    SPO1 Ursal, Jr., PO2 Capangpangan, and SPO1 Cerna. A closer look at the testimonies of SPO1 Ursal, Jr.
    and PO2
    Capangpangan reveal that they did not actually see firsthand the alleged sale of illegal drugs between
    accused-appellant Ordiz and the alleged poseur-buyer, SPO1 Cerna, as they were positioned at some
    considerable distance away from the area where SPO1 Cerna purportedly transacted with accused-
    appellant Ordiz. In fact, the RTC itself made the observation that the testimonies of SPO1 Ursal, Jr., and
    PO2 Capangpangan are unclear, holding in its Decision that "the declaration of SPO1 Narciso Ursal, Jr.
    and PO2 Raniel Capangpangan are not clear whether they actually saw the transaction or simply rushed
    up to arrest the accused after a pre-arranged signal was given."

    Aside from the foregoing, the acquittal of accused-appellant Ordiz is likewise warranted due to
    the patent non-observance of the chain of custody rule. Through the testimony of SPO1 Ursal, Jr., the
    prosecution merely established that there was a request to examine the allegedly seized specimen and
    that the specimen was transferred from the police station to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination.

    Aside from the bare fact that the specimen was transferred to the PNP Crime Laboratory, there
    was no evidence on the condition of the specimen and how the same was exactly turned over to the
    forensic chemist for laboratory examination. There is likewise no evidence on record as to the conduct
    of the supposed laboratory examination. No testimony was provided showing the procedures
    undertaken by the forensic chemist in examining the specimen, assuming in the first place that an
    examination was really undertaken. Moreover, there is no evidence providing details on how the
    specimen was returned by the forensic chemist back to the evidence custodian. In fact, the identity of
    the evidence custodian, assuming there was even a custodian, is unknown. In sum, there is absolutely
    no evidence establishing how the specimen was stored and maintained while in the custody of the PNP.

    With the transmittal and examination of the subject specimen having no solid evidentiary basis,
    indubitably, there is serious doubt cast, to say the least, as to the identity, integrity, and evidentiary
    value of the corpus delicti. Inevitably, accused-appellant Ordiz must be acquitted.

    You might also like