G.R. No.

191064

October 20, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ROLANDO ARANETA y ABELLA BOTONG !"# $ARILO% SANTOS y TANTA& $ALO%, Accused-Appellants. DECISION $ENDO'A, J.: This is an appeal from the Au ust !", !##$ Decision % of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-&.'. C'-(.C. No. #!)#$, *hich affirmed the +arch %!, !##, Decision! of the 'e ional Trial Court, -ranch %.%, Pasi Cit/ (RTC),findin the accused uilt/ 0e/ond reasona0le dou0t for violatin Section . and Section %% of Article II of 'epu0lic Act No. "%1., other*ise 2no*n as the 3Comprehensive Dru s Act of !##!.3 Criminal informations *ere filed in the 'TC a ainst 'olando Araneta / A0ella a.2.a. 3Botong3 for 4iolation of Section $ and Section %1 of '.A. No. 1,!. 5Dan erous Dru s Act of %"6!7, as amended, in addition to the Information filed a ainst him and co-accused +arilou Santos / Tanta/ a.2.a. 3 Malou3 for 4iolation of Section %., Article III in relation to Section !%, Article I4 of '.A. 1,!., as amended. In vie* of the enactment of '.A. No. "%1. 5Comprehensive Dru s Act of !##!7, the ori inal informations *ere amended accordin l/. The said Informations read8 Criminal Case No. %%,"%-D People vs. Araneta 9 Santos 5:or 4iolation of Sec. . in relation to Sec. !1, Art. II, '.A. "%1.7 On or a0out ;ul/ ., !##! in Pasi Cit/, and *ithin the <urisdiction of this (onora0le Court, the a0ove accused, conspirin and confederatin to ether and 0oth of them mutuall/ helpin and aidin one another, not 0ein la*full/ authori=ed to sell, dispense, transport or distri0ute an/ dan erous dru , did then and there *illfull/, unla*full/ and feloniousl/ sell, deliver and ive a*a/ to PO! Danilo S. Damasco, a police poseur 0u/er, one 5%7 heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containin *hite cr/stalline su0stance *ei hin of 5sic7 ei ht 5$7 centi rams 5#.#$ ram7, *hich *as found positive to the test for metamphetamine h/drochloride, a dan erous dru , in violation of said la*. Contrar/ to >a*. Criminal Case No. %%,"!-D People vs. Araneta 5:or 4iolation of Sec. %%, Art. II, '.A. "%1.7

On or a0out ;ul/ ., !##!, in Pasi Cit/, and *ithin the <urisdiction of this (onora0le Court, the accused, not 0ein la*full/ authori=ed to use or possess an/ dan erous dru , did then and there *illfull/, unla*full/ and feloniousl/ have in his possession and under his custod/ and control one 5%7 heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containin %.!! rams of dried mari<uana fruitin tops, *hich *as found positive to the test for mari<uana, a dan erous dru , and ei ht 5$7 heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containin *hite cr/stalline su0stance *ith the follo*in recorded net *ei ht, to *it8

%7 E?h. -% 'AA@#6#.#! A #.#6 ramB !7 E?h. -! 'AA@#6#.#! A #.%# ramB )7 E?h. -) 'AA@#6#.#! A #.#$ ramB ,7 E?h. -, 'AA@#6#.#! A #.#6 ramB .7 E?h. -. 'AA@#6#.#! A #.#$ ramB 17 E?h. -1 'AA@#6#.#! A #.#, ramB 67 E?h. -6 'AA@#6#.#! A #.#1 ramB $7 E?h. -$ 'AA@#6#.#! A #.#" ram
or havin a total *ei ht of #.." ram, *hich *ere found positive to the test for methamphetamine h/drochloride, a dan erous dru , in violation of the said la*. Contrar/ to >a*. The prosecutionCs evidence *as summari=ed in the CA decision as follo*s8 On ;ul/ ., !##!, 0et*een )8## and )8)# oCcloc2 in the mornin , a confidential informant arrived at the Station Dru Enforcement Dnit 5SDED7 of the Pasi Cit/ Police Station to report to Officer-In-Char e SP#, Numeriano de >ara the alle ed peddlin of ille al dru s of live-in couple -oton and +alou, later identified as appellants 'olando Araneta / A0ella and +arilou Santos / Tanta/, at -aran a/ Putol, 'osario, Pasi Cit/. SPO, de >ara immediatel/ formed a team composed of SPO! Dante Ei apan *ho acted as the team leader, PO! Danilo Damasco, PO% Ori , and PO% -ede +ontefalcon, to confirm the veracit/ of the informantCs report and conduct a 0u/-0ust operation. -efore dispatchin the team, SPO, de >ara 0riefed them as to the alle ed ille al activities of the couple and ave their description. SPO! Ei apan desi nated PO! Damasco as the poseur-0u/er ivin him a mar2ed P%## 0ill to 0e used in the entrapment. The team proceeded to the tar et area on 0oard t*o vehicles. SPO! Ei apan, +ontefalcon and the informant *ere

in one vehicle *hile PO! Damasco and PO% Ori *ere to ether in the other vehicle. The team arrived at the tar et place around ,8%# in the mornin . The/ positioned themselves some !#-)# meters from the alle/ *here appellants *ere alle edl/ sta/in . SPO! Ei apan ave instructions to the informant to locate the appellants. After several minutes, the informant came 0ac2 and confirmed the presence of appellants at 'OTC Street, Putol, - /. 'osario, Pasi Cit/. Thereafter, the team proceeded to the said location. PO! Damasco and the informant *ent near the appellants *ho *ere standin <ust outside their house. The informant and appellants e?chan ed reetin s. After a short conversation, -oton *ent inside their house. The informant introduced PO! Damasco to +alou 0/ sa/in , 3I-score itong kaibigan ko. Baka meron ka dyan.3 +alou then as2ed PO! Damasco, 3I-score ka na ba.3 After +alou as2ed PO! Damasco, 3Magkano,3 the latter immediatel/ ave her the mar2ed P%## 0ill. +alou called -oton and *hen the latter came out, +alou handed to him the mar2ed mone/. -oton then ave +alou a plastic sachet *hich she handed to PO! Damasco. After e?aminin the plastic sachet, PO! Damasco immediatel/ ave the prearran ed si nal to the other mem0ers of the team *ho thereafter rushed to the scene. PO! Damasco arrested +alou *hile SPO! Ei apan arrested -oton . SPO! Ei apan recovered from -oton the mar2ed P%## 0ill and after fris2in him, the police officer found in -oton Cs poc2et one plastic sachet of *hat loo2ed li2e mari<uana and ei ht plastic sachets containin *hite cr/stalline su0stance. PO! Damasco immediatel/ placed 3'AA3 and the date ;ul/ ., !##! on the plastic sachet he 0rou ht from +alou and the plastic sachets confiscated 0/ SPO! Ei apan from -oton . At the police station, PO! Damasco prepared the *ritten reFuest for a la0orator/ e?amination of the confiscated plastic sachets. To ether *ith the reFuest, the plastic sachets *ere 0rou ht 0/ PO% Ori to the crime la0orator/. The la0orator/ tests ave a positive result of the presence of methampethamine h/drochloride or *hat is locall/ 2no*n as sha0u on the contents of nine 5"7 sachets and mari<uana on one 5%7 sachet. The evidence for the accused *as summari=ed 0/ the CA as follo*s8 -et*een )8)# to ,8)# oCcloc2 in the mornin of ;ul/ ., !##1, accused 'olando Araneta to ether *ith his live-in partner and co-accused +arilou Santos *ere sleepin on the round floor of their rented apartment, *hen the/ *ere suddenl/ a*a2ened 0/ a loud noise comin from the upstairs. 'olando immediatel/ stood up and tried to o up the stairs. That *as *hen he met a man *ho introduced himself as a policeman. The man li2e*ise pointed a un to him and told him not to move. (e *as then instructed to sit do*n, to *hich he acceded. Thereafter,

the man *ent near the door of his house and opened the same. Suddenl/, four 5,7 other policemen *ent inside. One of the policemen *ent inside the comfort room and loo2ed for some0od/. >ater, he heard the said policeman utter, 3No0od/ is here.3 One of the policemen then approached 'olando and as2ed him the *herea0outs of a certain Ten . 'olando ans*ered that he did not 2no* Ten and that there *as no other person inside the house e?cept for him and his *ife +arilou. The police operatives searched his house. The/ ho*ever found nothin ille al inside his house. After the search, the police operatives invited 'olando and +arilou to come *ith them to the precinct to ans*er some Fuestions. Thereat, the police operatives informed them that the/ are 0ein char ed for their involvement in ille al dru activities, *hich the/ vehementl/ denied. PO! Damasco, ho*ever, told them that if the/ *anted to 0e released, 'olando and +arilou must pa/ P!#,###.## each. Ghen 'olando declined to ive said amount, the police operatives filed the instant cases a ainst them. 5TSN, ;une !), !##), pp. !-$7 In the earl/ mornin of ;ul/ ., !##), accused-appellant +arilou Santos and her live-in partner 'olando *ere sleepin *hen the/ *ere a*a2ened 0/ a noise comin from the second floor of their house. 'olando tried to o upstairs to find out *hat happened, 0ut he met a man *ho instantl/ po2ed a un at him. +arilou tried to stand up 0ut the policeman told her, 3Sta/ there, donCt move.3 Thereafter the police shoved them near the chair. (e also as2ed 'olando the *herea0outs of Ten 0ut the former ans*ered that no0od/ 0/ the name of Ten lived there. Ghile still po2in the un on them, the policeman opened the door of their house. :ive 5.7 policemen then entered and conducted a search. After the search, the policemen 0rou ht them to the police station. Thereat, PO! Damasco as2ed them several Fuestions. +oments later, the policeman ot somethin from the dra*er and told them that those articles 0elon to them. +arilou denied that the said articles 0elon to them since the policemen did not recover an/thin from them durin the search. Despite her denial, the/ *ere still char ed *ith 4iolations of Sections %., %1 and $ of 'epu0lic Act "%1.. After a *hile, PO! Damasco demanded P!#,###.## from them in e?chan e for their release. As the/ *ere innocent, +arilou refused to ive said amount, promptin the police operatives to formall/ char e them. 5TSN, ;ul/ !), !##), p. )7 In the earl/ mornin of ;ul/ ., !##!, +arian 'odri ue= *as outside the alle/ in 'OTC, 'osario, Pasi Cit/ *hen she sa* 0oth accused oin out of the alle/ accompanied 0/ five 5.7 men. The accused and the five 5.7 men passed in front of +arian. She hesitated to follo* the roup. Since then +arian never sa* the accused a ain. 5TSN, Septem0er %#, !##), pp. )-,7. In its +arch %!, !##, Decision, the 'TC found the accused uilt/ 0e/ond reasona0le dou0t and sentenced them accordin l/, as follo*s8 G(E'E:O'E, the Court renders <ud ment, as follo*s8

%7 In Criminal Case No. %%,"%-D, the Court finds accused 'olando Araneta / A0ella H -oton and accused +arilou Santos / Tanta/ A +alou &DI>TI 0e/ond reasona0le dou0t of violation of Sec. . in relation to Sec. !1, Art. II of '.A. "%1., other*ise 2no*n as the Comprehensive Dan erous Dru s Act of !##!, and imposes upon them the penalt/ of >I:E I+P'ISON+ENT and to pa/ a fine P.##, ###.## eachB and !7 In Criminal Case No. %%,"!-D 5*hich a0sor0ed Criminal Case No. %%,"#-D7, the Court finds accused 'olando Araneta / A0ella H-oton &DI>TI 0e/ond reasona0le dou0t of violation of Sec. %%, Art. II of '.A. "%1., other*ise 2no*n as the Comprehensive Dan erous Dru s Act of !##!, and imposes upon him the penalt/ of imprisonment of from T*elve 5%!7 /ears and One 5%7 da/ to T*ent/ 5!#7 /ears and to pa/ a fine of P)##, ###.##. Considerin that the accused is a detention prisoner, he shall 0e credited *ith the period of his detention durin his preventive imprisonment. ??? SO O'DE'ED. The 'TC ruled that all the elements for the prosecution of the ille al sale of dan erous dru s *ere present durin the 0u/-0ust operation conducted 0/ the police officers. These *ere8 %7 the identit/ of the 0u/er and the sellerB !7 the o0<ect of the sale and the considerationB and )7 the deliver/ of the thin sold and pa/ment therefor. :urthermore, the 'TC held that the defense of denial, frame-up, forci0le entr/, and e?tortion could not prevail over the positive identification 0/ the prosecution *itnesses. It noted that accused 'olando Araneta *as not candid enou h to inform the court that no less than ei ht 5$7 criminal cases *ere previousl/ filed a ainst him in different courts for violation of the Dan erous Dru s >a*. Nevertheless, out of ei ht 5$7 criminal cases filed a ainst him, he admitted that one resulted in a conviction and t*o other cases *ere dismissed. The other cases *ere then still pendin trial. A rieved, the accused appealed to the CA ar uin that8 %7 the 'TC erred in not findin that the/ *ere ille all/ arrested and, as such, the sachets of shabu alle edl/ recovered from them *ere inadmissi0le in evidenceB and !7 the 'TC erred in findin them uilt/ 0e/ond reasona0le dou0t of the crime char ed 0ecause the testimonies of the prosecution *itnesses *ere replete *ith inconsistencies and contradictions. On Au ust !", !##$, the CA rendered the su0<ect decision affirmin the decision of the 'TC. In arrivin at said determination, the CA applied the 3 ob ecti!e test3 in 0u/-0ust operations laid do*n in the case of"eo#le !. $oria, %&' (CRA ))*, )+*)++.) The CA ruled that the prosecution evidence met the standard for the ??? ???

3o0<ective test3 throu h the testimon/ of its *itness, PO! Danilo Damasco, *ho acted as #oseur-buyer and *ho related ho* the informant introduced him to the accusedB ho* the transaction *as consummated throu h the e?chan e of mar2ed mone/ and the sachet of shabuB and ho* the accused *as arrested 0/ the entrapment team. The CA noted that the accused *ere arrested in ,lagrante delicto and that other contra0and materials *ere recovered from them durin the ensuin search. It concluded that the cor#us delicti *as dul/ esta0lished. :inall/, the CA stated that the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the police officers *ere minor or inconseFuential. The accused failed to adduce evidence to overthro* the presumption of re ularit/ in the performance of dut/ in favor of the police officers. The accused li2e*ise failed to sho* proof that the police officers did not properl/ perform their <o0s or had ill motives a ainst them. +oreover, their defense of denial and frame-up for e?tortion purposes *as self-servin , ne ative evidence that *as not entitled to 0e iven reater *ei ht than the declaration of credi0le *itnesses *ho testified on affirmative matters. In due time, the accused filed a motion for reconsideration stressin the inadmissi0ilit/ of evidence due to their ille al arrest, and the inconsistenc/ in the testimonies of prosecution *itnesses. The/ also pointed out that the apprehendin officers failed to esta0lish that the cor#us delicti 5sachets of shabu or mari uana7 *ere the ver/ same ones sold 0/ and sei=ed from them. Additionall/, the/ claimed that the apprehendin team, *ho had initial custod/ over the confiscated dru items, failed to ma2e an inventor/ and to photo raph the same in their presence. On Au ust !,, !##", the CA issued a resolution , den/in their motion for reconsideration. The CA ruled, amon others, that the issues on the cor#us delicti and the alle ed failure of the apprehendin team to ma2e an inventor/ and to photo raph the shabu and mari uana in the presence of the accused *ere ne* issues not raised in their appeal 0rief. In their recourse to this Court, the accused presented onl/ one ISS%E (HETHER OR NOT THE A))%SED*APPELLANTS ARE G%ILT& BE&OND REASONABLE DO%BT FOR +IOLATING SE)TIONS , AND 11 OF ARTI)LE II OF R.A. No. 916,, OTHER(ISE -NO(N AS THE .)O$PREHENSI+E DR%GS A)T OF 2002. The accused ar ue that the evidence adduced 0/ the prosecution *as not a0le to esta0lish *ithout a dou0t, that the dan erous dru s presented in court *ere the ver/ same ones alle edl/ sold 0/ them. The/ insist that the police officers failed to strictl/ a0ide 0/ the reFuirements of the la* as re ards the proper custod/ of dan erous dru s sei=ed in the course of the alle ed 0u/-0ust operation.

The prosecution stands firm 0/ its position that the arrest of the accused and sei=ure of the sha0u and mari<uana *ere la*ful and that the testimonies of the prosecution *itnesses *ere truthful. In the a0sence of an/ credi0le evidence to the contrar/, the police officers are presumed to have re ularl/ performed their official dut/. +ore importantl/, all the elements necessar/ for the prosecution of the ille al sale of dru s are present, to *it8 %7 the identit/ of the 0u/er and the seller, the o0<ect and considerationB and !7 the deliver/ of the thin sold and pa/ment therefor. The prosecution asserts that the accused cannot raise for the first time on appeal the issue on the alle ed failure of the la* enforcers to compl/ strictl/ *ith Section !% of 'epu0lic Act No. "%1.. At an/ rate, the prosecution 0elieves that it has sho*n that the chain of custod/ of the sei=ed items *as not 0ro2en. THE )O%RT/S R%LING8 After due consideration, the Court finds the evidence on record sufficient enou h to sustain the verdict of conviction. It is morall/ convinced that the accused are uilt/ 0e/ond reasona0le dou0t of the offense char ed a ainst them. The rule is that factual findin s of the trial court, its cali0ration of the testimonies of the *itnesses and its assessment of their pro0ative *ei ht are iven hi h respect if not conclusive effect, unless the trial court i nored, misconstrued, misunderstood or misinterpreted co ent facts and circumstances of su0stance, *hich, if considered, *ill alter the outcome of the case.. In this case, the CA found no such inculpator/ facts and circumstances and this Court has not stum0led upon an/ either. Dou0tless, the prosecution *as a0le to esta0lish all the necessar/ elements reFuired in the prosecution for ille al sale of dan erous dru s, namel/8 %7 the identit/ of the 0u/er and sellerB !7 the identit/ of the o0<ect of the sale and the considerationB and )7 the deliver/ of the thin sold upon pa/ment. PO! Danilo Damasco, ("-. $amasco) the #oseur-buyer, clearl/ and convincin l/ narrated in detail the entrapment operation the/ had conducted that led to the arrest of the accused and the sei=ure of the dan erous dru s. (e related on the *itness stand that upon receivin information from a confidential informant a0out the ille al sale of dan erous dru s 0/ the accused, the/ immediatel/ formed an entrapment team to conduct a 0u/-0ust operation. Dpon reachin the area in the earl/ mornin of ;ul/ ., !##!, he and the confidential informant approached the accused. After a 0rief introduction and short conversation, accused -oton *ent inside their house *hile accused +alou received the mar2ed mone/ from the #oseur-buyer. +alou then called -oton *ho thereafter came out of the house. +alou ave the mar2ed mone/ to -oton *ho, in turn, ave +alou a plastic sachet containin a *hite cr/stalline su0stance. The plastic sachet *as then handed over to PO! Damasco *ho e?amined it and immediatel/ ave the pre-arran ed si nal to arrest the accused. Durin the arrest, the mar2ed mone/ *as recovered from 'olando and so *ere several other plastic sachets containin *hite cr/stalline su0stances to ether

*ith a plastic sachet containin mari<uana. Su0seFuentl/, the accused *ere 0rou ht to the police station and the sei=ed items *ere later 0rou ht to the Police Crime >a0orator/ Office for e?amination. The testimon/ of PO! Damasco *as corro0orated 0/ SPO! Eipa an, the entrapment team leader, and SPO, Numeriano De >ara, the entrapment team or ani=er. Contrar/ to the posture of the accused, the testimon/ of PO! Damasco *as clear, consistent and convincin . As correctl/ assessed 0/ the CA, his testimon/ passed the 3o0<ective test3 in 0u/-0ust operations. Ge therefore stress that the 3o0<ective3 test in 0u/-0ust operations demands that the #et!012 o3 t4e 56r5orte# tr!"2!ct0o" 762t be c1e!r1y !"# !#e86!te1y 24o9". This must start from the initial contact 0et*een the poseur-0u/er and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or pa/ment of the consideration until the consummation of the sale 0/ the deliver/ of the ille al dru su0<ect of the sale. The manner 0/ *hich the initial contact *as made, *hether or not throu h an informant, the offer to purchase the dru , the pa/ment of the 30u/-0ust3 mone/, and the deliver/ of the ille al dru , *hether to the informant alone or the police officer, must 0e the su0<ect of strict scrutin/ 0/ courts to insure that la*a0idin citi=ens are not unla*full/ induced to commit an offense. Criminals must 0e cau ht 0ut not at all cost. At the same time, ho*ever, e?aminin the conduct of the police should not disa0le courts into i norin the accusedCs predisposition to commit the crime. If there is over*helmin evidence of ha0itual delinFuenc/, recidivism or plain criminal proclivit/, then this must also 0e considered. Courts should loo2 at all factors to determine the predisposition of an accused to commit an offense in so far as the/ are relevant to determine the validit/ of the defense of inducement.1 JEmphasis suppliedK The Court loo2ed into the accusedCs defense of denial and accusations of frameup, plantin of evidence, forci0le entr/ and e?tortion 0/ the police officers 0ut found them inherentl/ *ea2. Aside from their 0are alle ations, the accused had nothin more to sho* that the apprehendin police officers did not properl/ perform their duties or that the/ had ill motives a ainst them. The/ failed to su0stantiate their ar ument that the/ *ere framed-up for e?tortion purposes. A0sent an/ convincin countervailin evidence, the presumption is that the mem0ers of the 0u/-0ust team performed their duties in a re ular manner. It *as certainl/ a <o0 *ell done. (ence, the Court ives full faith and credit to the testimonies of the prosecution *itnesses. The Court also holds that the sei=ed items *ere admissi0le. A search *arrant or *arrant of arrest *as not needed 0ecause it *as a 0u/-0ust operation and the accused *ere cau ht in ,lagrante delicto in possession of, and sellin , dan erous dru s to the #oseur-buyer. It *as definitel/ le al for the 0u/-0ust team to arrest, and search, them on the spot 0ecause a 0u/-0ust operation is a <ustifia0le mode of apprehendin dru pushers. A 0u/-0ust operation is a form of entrapment

*here0/ *a/s and means are resorted to for the purpose of trappin and capturin the la*0rea2ers in the e?ecution of their criminal plan. In this <urisdiction, the operation is le al and has 0een proven to 0e an effective method of apprehendin dru peddlers, provided due re ard to constitutional and le al safe uards is underta2en.6 In "eo#le !. /illamin, involvin an accused arrested after he sold dru s durin a 0u/-0ust operation, the Court ruled that it *as a circumstance *here a *arrantless arrest is <ustified under 'ule %%), Sec. .5a7 of the 'ules of Court. The same rulin applies to the instant case. Ghen carried out *ith due re ard for constitutional and le al safe uards, it is a <udiciall/ sanctioned method of apprehendin those involved in ille al dru activities. It is a valid form of entrapment, as the idea to commit a crime comes not from the police officers 0ut from the accused himself. The accused is cau ht in the act and must 0e apprehended on the spot. :rom the ver/ nature of a 0u/-0ust operation, the a0sence of a *arrant does not ma2e the arrest ille al . The ille al dru s sei=ed *ere not the 3fruit of the poisonous tree3 as the defense *ould li2e this Court to 0elieve. The sei=ure made 0/ the 0u/-0ust team falls under a search incidental to a la*ful arrest under 'ule %!1, Sec. %) of the 'ules of Court, *hich pertinentl/ provides8 A person la*full/ arrested ma/ 0e searched for dan erous *eapons or an/thin *hich ma/ have 0een used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense *ithout a search *arrant. Since the 0u/-0ust operation *as esta0lished as le itimate, it follo*s that the search *as also valid, and a *arrant *as li2e*ise not needed to conduct it. $
'a!!#hi'

It should also 0e noted that after the 'TC rendered a uilt/ verdict, the accused filed a motion for reconsideration 0ased on t*o 5!7 rounds, to *it8 %7 inadmissi0ilit/ of the sei=ed itemsB and !7 credi0ilit/ of the prosecution *itnesses. In the CA, the/ reiterated said rounds. After an unfavora0le decision and rulin , the accused added t*o 5!7 ne* ar uments in their motion for reconsideration, to *it8 %7 the apprehendin officers failed to esta0lish that the cor#us delicti 5sachets of sha0u or mari<uana7 *ere the ver/ same ones sold 0/ and sei=ed from themB and !7 the apprehendin team *ho had initial custod/ over the confiscated dru items failed to ma2e an inventor/ and to photo raph the same in their presence. The Court totall/ a rees *ith the rulin of the CA that the issues on the cor#us delicti and the compliance *ith Section !% of 'A No. "%1. *ere issues that *ere not raised 0/ the accused in their appellantsC 0rief, and *ere onl/ presented in their motion for reconsideration from the decision of the CA. (ence, the Court cannot act, much less, rule on said ne* points. To do so *ould violate 0asic rules on fair pla/ and due process. Thus8

Ge point out the defenseCs failure to contest the admissi0ilit/ of the sei=ed items as evidence durin trial as this *as the initial point in o0<ectin to ille all/ sei=ed evidence. At the trial, the sei=ed shabu *as dul/ mar2ed, made the su0<ect of e?amination and cross-e?amination, and eventuall/ offered as evidence, /et at no instance did the appellant manifest or even hint that there *ere lapses in the safe2eepin of sei=ed items that affected their admissi0ilit/, inte rit/ and evidentiar/ value. In "eo#le !. 0ernande=, *e held that o0<ection to the admissi0ilit/ of evidence cannot 0e raised for the first time on appealB *hen a part/ desires the court to re<ect the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of o0<ection. Githout such o0<ection, he cannot raise the Fuestion for the first time on appeal." (HEREFORE, the Au ust !", !##$ Decision of the Court of Appeals, in CA-&.'. C'-(.C. No. #!)#$, isAFFIR$ED. SO O'DE'ED.