Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 171 views

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EMMANUEL OLIVA Et Al.

    Uploaded by

    Orl Trinidad
    (1) The Supreme Court ruled that the presence of the accused or their representative during the inventory of seized drug evidence is not mandatory under the law. (2) The case involved a buy-bust operation where police officers arrested Manu, Barangot, and Manalastas for selling shabu. (3) Manu et al. argued the drug evidence should be excluded because the inventory was not conducted in the presence required by law, but the Supreme Court found the law does not make those presences mandatory.

    Copyright:

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

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EMMANUEL OLIVA Et Al.

    Uploaded by

    Orl Trinidad
    171 views2 pages
    (1) The Supreme Court ruled that the presence of the accused or their representative during the inventory of seized drug evidence is not mandatory under the law. (2) The case involved a buy-bust operation where police officers arrested Manu, Barangot, and Manalastas for selling shabu. (3) Manu et al. argued the drug evidence should be excluded because the inventory was not conducted in the presence required by law, but the Supreme Court found the law does not make those presences mandatory.

    Original Description:

    People of the Philippines vs. Emmanuel Oliva

    Original Title

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EMMANUEL OLIVA et al.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    (1) The Supreme Court ruled that the presence of the accused or their representative during the inventory of seized drug evidence is not mandatory under the law. (2) The case involved a buy-bust operation where police officers arrested Manu, Barangot, and Manalastas for selling shabu. (3) Manu et al. argued the drug evidence should be excluded because the inventory was not conducted in the presence required by law, but the Supreme Court found the law does not make those presences mandatory.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    171 views2 pages

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EMMANUEL OLIVA Et Al.

    Uploaded by

    Orl Trinidad
    (1) The Supreme Court ruled that the presence of the accused or their representative during the inventory of seized drug evidence is not mandatory under the law. (2) The case involved a buy-bust operation where police officers arrested Manu, Barangot, and Manalastas for selling shabu. (3) Manu et al. argued the drug evidence should be excluded because the inventory was not conducted in the presence required by law, but the Supreme Court found the law does not make those presences mandatory.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    CASE:

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EMMANUEL OLIVA et. al.


    (G.R. No. 234156, January 07, 2019)

    FACTS:
    The Chief of Station Anti-Illegal Drugs – Special Operations Task Group (SAID-SOTG)
    received a report regarding the sale of dangerous drugs by a certain “Manu” somewhere
    in Makati City. As such, a buy-bust operation was planned.
    When they arrived at the target area, the Poseur-buyer (a police officer) and the
    confidential informant approached Manu. The Poseur-buyer handed Manu the marked
    money after the latter demanded payment. Manu then showed Poseur-buyer four (4)
    transparent plastic sachets with white crystalline substance and asked the latter to choose
    one. Meanwhile, two (2) other persons, Barangot and Manalastas were also at the target
    area to buy shabu. Barangot and Manalastas, and the Poseur-buyer each took one
    sachet from the four sachets that Manu showed.
    Upon receiving the dangerous drug, the Poseur-buyer immediately scratched his chin,
    which is the pre-arranged signal to his back-up that the transaction has been completed.
    Manu et. al. were arrested.
    Manu, Barangot and Manalastas were arrested and brought to the barangay hall where
    an inventory was conducted and on the basis thereof, an inventory report was prepared.
    During the inventory the only one present to witness the inventory and the marking was
    an elected official, Barangay Captain Evelyn Villamor.
    When the case reached the Supreme Court, Manu et. al. argue, among others, that the
    arresting officers failed to immediately conduct a physical inventory of the seized items
    and photograph the same in the presence of the accused, their representative or counsel,
    a representative of the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected
    public official who are required to sign the copies of the inventory. Thus, according to
    Manu et. al., the prosecution failed to establish every link in the chain of custody of the
    seized items.

    ISSUE:
    Whether the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
    confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the
    media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official is mandatory.

    RULING:
    NO.
    Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165 specifies:
    The apprehending team having in trial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately
    after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the
    presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or
    seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the
    Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign
    the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
    Supplementing the above-quoted provision, Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and
    Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 provides:

    SUBMITTED BY:
    ORLYNE T. TRINIDAD
    Student

    You might also like