You are on page 1of 8

BRIEF FOR THE APPELLANT

People vs. Buenaventuras


CA-G.R. CR HC No. 32145
x-------------------------------------x

Republic of the Philippines


COURT OF APPEALS
City of Manila

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,


Plaintiff-Appellee,

-versus-

CA-G.R. CR. No. 32145

LEO BUENAVENTURA, ALIAS


BOY TIGAS
LEAR
BUENAVENTURA
ALIAS BOY ASTIG
LEVI BUENAVENTURA ALIAS
BOY BATO,
Accused-Appellant.
x-------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITY
FOR THE APPELLANT
Appellants LEO BUENAVENTURA ALIAS BOY TIGAS,
LEAR BUENAVENTURA ALIAS BOY ASTIG and LEVI
BUENAVENTURA ALIAS BOY BATO, by counsel, to this
Honorable Court, respectfully submits this Memorandum of
Authority and states:
On the issues of whether the
Regional
Trial
Court
of

BRIEF FOR THE APPELLANT


People vs. Buenaventuras
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 32145
x-------------------------------------x

Catanduanes has no jurisdiction


over the case and that the drugs
found in the suitcase were a
product of an illegal search.
Appellants Buenaventura Brothers assail the trial court's
decision convicting Boy Tigas and Boy Astig of Illegal
Possession of Dangerous Drugs while Boy Bato of Illegal
Possession of Shabu Paraphernalia. Buenaventura Brothers
mainly argue that the case should have been dismissed due to
lack of jurisdiction because the Regional Trial Court of
Catanduanes has no jurisdiction over the case for Illegal
Possession of Drug Paraphernalia filed against Boy Bato, as
the said offense is punishable by less than 6 years of
imprisonment and that Boy Tigas and Boy Astig should not
have been convicted of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs
because the shabu found inside Boy Tigas' suitcase was a
product of an illegal search, as PO3 Reyes and PO1 Handa
were not armed with a search warrant at the time they were
searched.
Appellants assertions holds merit.
At the onset, it bears stressing that the intent of the
statute is the law, and that this intent must be effectuated by
the courts. The express language of R.A. No. 7691 reflects the
intent of the legislature for liberal construction as will best
ensure the attainment of the object of the law according to its
true intent, meaning and spirit AN ACT EXPANDING THE
JURISDICTION OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS,
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT
TRIAL COURTS.

Section 2 of R.A. No. 7691 AMENDING FOR THE


PURPOSE OF BATAS PAMBANSA, BLG. 129, which
enumerates the cases under the jurisdiction of Metropolitan
Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit

BRIEF FOR THE APPELLANT


People vs. Buenaventuras
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 32145
x-------------------------------------x

Trial Courts pertinently provides:


Section 2. Section 32 of the same law is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial
Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts in Criminal Cases. Except
in cases falling within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and of the
Sandiganbayan, the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts shall exercise:
"(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all
violations of city or municipal ordinances
committed within their respective territorial
jurisdiction; and
"(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all
offenses punishable with imprisonment not
exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the
amount of fine, and regardless of other
imposable
accessory
or other
penalties,
including the civil liability arising from such
offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of
kind, nature, value or amount thereof: Provided,
however, That in offenses involving damage to
property through criminal negligence, they shall
have exclusive original jurisdiction thereof."
xxx

xxx

xxx

(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, which defines


warrantless arrest pertinently provides:
Sec.5. Arrest without warrant, when lawful A
peace officer or a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person:
a) When, in his presence, the person to be
arrested has committed, is actually committing

BRIEF FOR THE APPELLANT


People vs. Buenaventuras
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 32145
x-------------------------------------x

or is attempting to commit an offense;


b) When an offense has just been committed and
he has probable cause to believe based on
personal knowledge of facts or circumstances
that the person to be arrested has committed it;
and
c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner
who has escaped from a penal establishment or
place where he is service final judgment or is
temporarily confined while his case is pending,

or has escaped while being transferred from

one confinement to another.


xxx

xxx

xxx

Evidence gathered from an unlawful search and seizure


is not admissible as evidence. The Supreme Court summarizes
the rule as follows:
Corolarilly, the 1987 Constitution states that a
search and consequent seizure must be carried
out with a judicial warrant; otherwise, it
becomes unreasonable and any evidence
obtained therefrom shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in a proceeding. Said proscription,
however, admits of exceptions, namely:
1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful
arrest;
2. Search of evidence in plain view;
3. Search of a moving vehicle;
4. Consented warrantless search;
5. Customs search;
6. Stop and Frisk; and
7. Exigent and emergency circumstances.
xxx

xxx

xxx

BRIEF FOR THE APPELLANT


People vs. Buenaventuras
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 32145
x-------------------------------------x

(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

In searches incident to a lawful arrest, the arrest must


precede the search; generally, the process cannot be reversed.
Nevertheless, a search substantially contemporaneous with an
arrest can precede the arrest if the police have probable cause
to make the arrest at the outset of the search. Although
probable cause eludes exact and concrete definition, it
ordinarily signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion
supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves
to warrant a cautious man to believe that the person accused
is guilty of the offense with which he is charged (Tibagong v.
People of the Philippines G.R. no. 182178. August 15, 2011).
The above provisions aforementioned indicate
warrantless arrests that are considered lawful are:

that

1. The warrantless search conducted must be incidental


to the lawful arrest of the accused;
2. The search can be done if the evidence is visible in
plain view;
3. The search can be conducted in a moving vehicle;
4. The suspect consented to such warrantless search;
5. The search be conducted by customs;
6. The nature of the search is Stop and Frisk; and
7. The search be done in exigent and emergency
circumstances.
The Shabu obtained as a result of a warrantless arrest is
inadmissible as evidence for the following reasons:

BRIEF FOR THE APPELLANT


People vs. Buenaventuras
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 32145
x-------------------------------------x

1. The accused was not acting suspiciously;


2. That they were not committing a crime at the time
they were searched at the Catanduanes Port;
3. That PO3 Reyes and PO1 Handa were not armed with
a search warrant at the time they were searched; and
4. That they seem to have been arrested simply because
of their appearances; certainly, wearing a leather
jacket or oversized sunglasses in the middle of the day,
or sporting Afro hairstyle or a nose earring is not a
crim.

Nevertheless, appellants insist that they are innocent of the


charges of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs and Illegal
Possession of Shabu Paraphernalia filed against them. They
claim that they are not doing anything illegal. Hence, the case
should have been dismissed as ...The warrantless search
conducted must be incidental to the lawful arrest of the
accused.
Accordingly, the trial court erred in convicting appellants
of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs and Illegal Possession
of Shabu Paraphernalia on the basis of lack of jurisdiction and
warrantless search. Therefore, the offense charged should be
dismissed.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the appealed

BRIEF FOR THE APPELLANT


People vs. Buenaventuras
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 32145
x-------------------------------------x

Decision be AFFIRMED in toto for being in accord with the


prevailing law and jurisprudence and the evidence on record.
Makati City, October 20, 2015.

FLORIN T. HILBAY
Solicitor General
Roll No. 44937
IBP Lifetime No. 08505
MCLE Exemption No. IV-001068
PEAFRANCIA C. CARPIO DEVESA
Associate Solicitor
IBP No. 0996145
MCLE Compliance No. III-003761
ERIKA FRANCES S. BULURAN
Assistant Solicitor General
Roll No. 33927
IBP No. 0984411
MCLE Exemption No. IV-000144
MARY ALELIE D. BATINO
Junior Associate Solicitor
Roll No. 32689
IBP No. 032689
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
134 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village
Makati City
Tel No. 818-6301 to 09

Copy furnished:

Office of the Prosecutor


Catanduanes

EXPLANATION

BRIEF FOR THE APPELLANT


People vs. Buenaventuras
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 32145
x-------------------------------------x

The foregoing BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE is being served by


registered mail due to lack of manpower to effect personal service.

MARY ALELIE D. BATINO


Junior Associate Solicitor

madb
Madb