Explore

Search Search
UploadSaved

Pp v Rosauro Digest
Uploaded by Gian Bermudo on Jan 06, 2017

Related Interests
Reasonable Doubt
Judiciaries
Criminal Law
Public Law
Government

Rating and Stats

0Up votes0Down votes
24 views

Document Actions
Download

Save for Later

Other Actions

SHARE OR EMBED DOCUMENT

Embed
Description: case digest
View More
case digest
Copyright: All Rights Reserved
Downloadas DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Flag for inappropriate content
 Recommended Documents
Documents Similar To Pp v Rosauro Digest

Petition for Appointment as Notary Public

by Ruzzel Diane Oducado

Loon vs. Power Master

by Eloisa Katrina Madamba



Leoveras v. Valdez

by Paui Rodriguez

Documents About Reasonable Doubt

Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 39 (1990)

by Scribd Government Docs

 United States v. Eric Arthur Walton, United States of America v. Eldridge Mayfield,
A/K/A Sippy, 207 F.3d 694, 4th Cir. (2000)

by Scribd Government Docs

United States v. Rodrigo Mejia, Romero Eduardo Grau, 97 F.3d 1391, 11th Cir. (1996)

by Scribd Government Docs

More From Gian Bermudo

 Pp v Musa

by Gian Bermudo

Evidence Case

by Gian Bermudo

Youth Power

by Gian Bermudo

You are on page 2of 2

Screen Reader Compatibility Information

Due to the method this document is displayed on the page, screen readers may not
read the content correctly. For a better experience, please download the original
document and view it in the native application on your computer.

G.R. No. 209588,

February 18,
2015PEOPLE
OF THE
PHILIPPINES
,
Plaintif-
Appellee
,
v.
ERIC
ROSAURO
!ONGCA"IL
,
Accused-
Appellant
.
Fa#$%&
The accused-
appelant, Eric
Rosauro, was
charged with
violation of Sec.
5, Art. II of R. A.
No.
9 !5. According
to the "rosecution
, on #ul$ %, &''(,
the police authori
tiesreceived inf
or)ation that dr
ugs were *eing
distri*uted at "
uro+ %, arang
a$ "o*lacion,
illanueva, isa)
is /riental. Thus
a *u$-
*ustoperation w
as conducted *$
 the "rovincial 0
rug Enforce)ent
1nit of i
s a ) i s
/ r i e
n t a l .
There, the
o2icers saw
Rosauro
negotiate with
the con3dential
agent andafter
the transaction,
Rosauro was arre
sted. Thereafter,
the con3dentiala
gent handed the
sachet to an
o2icer, who
taped it, )ar+ed
it with
the)ar+ing
4E hi*it A6, and
placed it
inside his poc+et.
7e also too+
pictures
of Rosauro and
the drugs. In the
police station, he
prepared a
8erti3cate
of Inventor$ and
a Re uest for
:a*orator$
E a)ination.
oth the drugs
andR o s a u r o w
ere then turne
d over to the
8ri)e la*orato
r $ . The ;orensic
8he)ical /2icer o
f "N" 8ri)e :a*o
rator$ conducte
d ala*orator$
e a)ination on
the contents of
the sachet, on
accused-
appellant,and the
)ar+ed )one$.
The e a)ination
of the sei<ed ite)
$ielded
positiveresult for
sha*u= while the
accused-
appellant and the
)ar+ed )one$
testedpositive for
the presence of
ultra-
violet >uorescent
powder.
!
7owever,
Rosauro clai)s he
was )erel$ a
victi) of
instigation. 7e
testi3edthat on
#ul$ %, &''(, the
police asset went
to his house four
?(@ ti)es
andconvinced hi)
to do an errand
for hi). Rosauro
refused to *u$
sha*u as hedid
not +now where
to *u$ one. It
was the
con3dential
infor)ant who
toldhi) to *u$ the
prohi*ited drug
fro) a certain
4 ael6 and to
deliver it to
thefor)erBs
house. It was also
the infor)ant who
gave the )one$ to
Rosauro to*u$
the sha*u. ut
Rosauro was not
a*le to )eet or
*u$ directl$ fro)
ael*ecause it
was a $oung )an
who got and
handed to hi) the
sha*u on
theroad. Chen
Rosauro went to
the house of the
con3dential
infor)ant
asinstructed, he
was arrested.
The sachet of
sha*u was not
even
recoveredfro) hi)
*ut fro) the
con3dential
infor)ant.
D
The RT8
convicted
Rosauro after
3nding the
evidence of the
prosecutionsu2ic
ient to esta*lish
the guilt of
accused-
appellant.Rosaur
o appealed
*efore the 8A,
arguing that the
RT8 erred in
convictinghi) sin
ce his guilt was
not proven *e$o
nd reasona*le d
ou*t. The 8A
a2ir)ed the RT8
#udg)ent, thus
accused-
appellant is now
*efore the
8ourts e e + i n
g a revie
w of his
convictio
n.
I%%ue&
Cas there
irregularit$ in the
chain of custod$
of the sei<ed
ite)
He'(&
N/.The chain of
custod$ is not e
sta*lished solel
$ *$ co)pliance
with theprescri*
ed ph$sical
inventor$ and
photographing of
the sei<ed drugs
in
thepresence of t
he enu)erated p
ersons. The I)pl
e)enting Rules
andRegulations
of R. A. No.
9 !5 on the
handling and
disposition of
sei<eddangerous
drugs
statesFchanRo*le
svirtual:awli*rar$
 "rovided,
further, that non-
co)pliance with
these
re uire)ents
under Gusti3a*le
grounds, as long
as the integrit$ an
d evidentiar$ val
ue of thesei<ed
ite)s are properl$
preserved *$ the
apprehending
o2icerHtea),
shallnot render
void and invalid
such sei<ures of
and custod$ over
said ite)s.
&&
7owever, this
8ourt has, in )an$
cases, held that
while the chain
of custod$should
ideall$ *e
perfect, in realit$
it is 4al)ost
alwa$s i)possi*le
to o*tainan
un*ro+en
chain.6 The )ost
i)portant factor
is the
preservation of
theintegrit$ and
the evidentiar$
value of the
sei<ed ite)s as
the$ will *e
usedto deter)ine
the guilt or
innocence of the
accused. 7ence,
the
prosecutionBsfail
ure to su*)it in
evidence the
ph$sical
inventor$ and
photograph of
thesei<ed drugs
as re uired
under Article &
of R. A. No.
9 !5, will not
rendert h e a c c u
sedBs arrest i
llegal or the i
te)s sei<ed fr
o ) h i ) inad)issi*l
e.
&
chanro*lesvirtual
lawli*rar$
Recommended Documents
Documents Similar To Pp v Rosauro Digest
carousel next

Petition for Appointment as Notary Public

 Loon vs. Power Master

Leoveras v. Valdez

 S v COLLEN KAVEZEMBURUKA TJIKUZU

United States v. Alfred Lee Weinberg, Morgan Bird, Sr., 226 F.2d 161, 3rd Cir. (1955)

United States v. Joseph T. Wells, 446 F.2d 2, 2d Cir. (1971)

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing Criminal Law



Spouses Paras vs Kimwa

United States v. Nicholas Anthony Moccia, 681 F.2d 61, 1st Cir. (1982)

United States v. Joe Pepe, 501 F.2d 1142, 10th Cir. (1974)

United States v. Burns, 10th Cir. (2015)

Untitled

 United States v. Dority, 10th Cir. (2000)

Digest People v. Medario Calantiao

Legal Forms (Samples - Incomplete)

United States v. Diamreyan (D. Ct.)

United States v. Orion T. Whiting, Jr., and Lucretia Killings, 311 F.2d 191, 4th Cir. (1963)

People vs Partucela


People vs Capuno

Copy of 340 - Yokishazi vs Joy Training Center.docx

Derek Wesley Hall v. Paul Dipaolo, Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution--

Norfolk, 72 F.3d 243, 1st Cir. (1996)

172539

United States v. Obilo, 4th Cir. (2011)

 gr_208643_2016

035641100

Dissentcommramsey

United States v. Miller, 10th Cir. (1996)

Quintos vs Beck

People of the Philippines vs. Alex Bello



Edrada vs Ramos

Documents About Reasonable Doubt

carousel next

Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 39 (1990)

United States v. Eric Arthur Walton, United States of America v. Eldridge Mayfield, A/K/A
Sippy, 207 F.3d 694, 4th Cir. (2000)

United States v. Rodrigo Mejia, Romero Eduardo Grau, 97 F.3d 1391, 11th Cir. (1996)

United States v. George G. Rogers, 94 F.3d 1519, 11th Cir. (1996)



United States v. Patrick J. Logan, Michael Graner. Appeal of Michael Graner, 717 F.2d 84, 3rd
Cir. (1983)

United States v. Premnath Birbal, Also Known as Winston, and John T. Wright, 62 F.3d 456,
2d Cir. (1995)

United States v. Raymond Isaac, A/K/A Rocky Raymond Isaac, 134 F.3d 199, 3rd Cir. (1998)

United States v. Lynn Duane Hewitt, 89 F.3d 830, 4th Cir. (1996)

David v. Yarborough v. United States, 230 F.2d 56, 4th Cir. (1956)


State v. Stevens, Ariz. Ct. App. (2015)

United States v. Laddie Smith, in No. 71-1185, Clark Lumpkin. Appeal of Clark Lumpkin, in No.
71-1186, 450 F.2d 312, 3rd Cir. (1971)

Us v Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Verdict Form

United States v. Harry T. Hanley, (Two Cases), 974 F.2d 14, 4th Cir. (1992)

United States v. Joe Ramsey, 374 F.2d 192, 2d Cir. (1967)

 Heads of Argument Final Version - 31 July 2014

United States v. Aurelius Wilson Brown, 284 F.2d 89, 4th Cir. (1960)

United States v. Grist, 10th Cir. (2006)

United States v. Ruiz, 10th Cir. (2006)

United States v. Vasilios Gatzonis, A/K/A "William,", 805 F.2d 72, 2d Cir. (1986)

Dennis Dick v. Ralph Kemp, Warden, 833 F.2d 1448, 11th Cir. (1987)


Bobby v. Mitts, 131 S. Ct. 1762 (2011)

United States v. Roberto Mieres-Borges and Osvaldo Becerra-Flores, 919 F.2d 652, 11th Cir.
(1990)

State v. Tran, Ariz. Ct. App. (2016)

United States v. Bemka Corp., 11th Cir. (2010)

United States v. Clinton Smith, Jr., 98 F.3d 1336, 4th Cir. (1996)

 Kidwell v. Martin, 10th Cir. (2012)

State v. Walker, Ariz. Ct. App. (2016)

United States v. Klyde Glenn, David Thompson, McArthur Cook, Calvin Cornelious, Jesse
Evans, Robert Love, Markel Curry, Charles Moody, Also Known as Fruit, Demetrius
Yarborough, Also Known as Tutu, Terry Ridgeway, Jerry Ridgeway, Also Known as Jake,
Joseph Anthony, Samuel Barclay, Jr., Jesse Brown, Herman Johnson, Also Known as Big
Herm, Youssef Johnson, and Eddie Wooten, Jonathan Parker, Also Known as Face, 312 F.3d
58, 2d Cir. (2002)

David Kevin Justice v. Robert Hoke, Superintendent, Eastern Correctional Facility, 45 F.3d 33,
2d Cir. (1995)

Ulbricht Verdict
 More From Gian Bermudo

Pp v Musa

Evidence Case

Youth Power

Discussion Outline - How to Be Everyday Heroes

Footer Menu
ABOUT

About Scribd

Press

Our blog

Join our team!

 Contact Us

Invite Friends

Gifts

LEGAL

Terms

Privacy

Copyright

SUPPORT

Help / FAQ

Accessibility

Purchase help
AdChoices

Publishers

Social Media
o
o
o
o
o

Copyright 2017 Scribd Inc.

.
Browse Books
.
Mobile Site
.
Site Directory
.
Site Language:
English
This document is...
UsefulNot useful
s