You are on page 1of 1

3. People vs. Chua Uy [G.R. No. 128046. March 7, 2000.

] allegedly seized is indeed shabu, and also determine its actual weight upon which
TOPIC: Admissions of a party depends the penalty to be imposed. Thus, whatever he said in his report is hearsay
and hearsay evidence, whether objected to or not, has no probative value.
FACTS:
 A female confidential informant personally informed the Anti-Narcotics ISSUE:
Unit of the PNP Malabon City that Ramon Uy (alias Chekwa) asked her to
look for a buyer of shabu at a price of P1,000.00 per gram. W/N an agreement, during pre-trial, to dispense with testimonies of the Forensic
Chemist may be considered an admission of findings of such chemist on contents
 Acting on the given information, the members of the unit subsequently of seized plastic bag – NO
planned a buy-bust operation against the accused. The confidential
informant told Uy that there is a prospective buyer (to be delivered in front W/N the Forensics Chemist should be presented as witness – NO
of Justice Hall of Malabon City). One police acted as poseur buyer. Then,
they were able to obtain shabu from him.  It may at once be noted that neither accused nor his counsel made
o Police yielded more shabu packets from his attache case express admission that the contents of the plastic bags to “be marked” as
 When he was brought to the office for investigation, it was learned that Exhibits contain shabu.
there was still an undetermined amount shabu that is left at his home. o Based on the joint order, it is clear that accused and his counsel
merely agreed to the marking of the exhibits, and the clause
o SPO4 Regalado applied on the following day for a search warrant “thereby dispensing with the testimony of forensic Chemist
to lawfully search the said premises of the accused for shabu. Bravo.”
They were able to obtain shabu. o Even granting for the sake of argument that Uy admitted during
 During pre-trial, the parties agreed on a joint trial and to dispense with the pre-trial order that the packs contained shabu, it still CANNOT be
testimony of Forensic Chemist Loreto F. Bravo. They also agreed on the used as evidence against him because the Joint Order was not
marking of the exhibits for the prosecution. signed.
o When the prosecution formally offered in evidence what it had
UY’S VERSION marked in evidence during the pre-trial, Uy did not object to the
 He just got home from tending to his garments business and was carrying a admission of Bravo’s Preliminary Report.
large amount of money, P132,000 to be exact from his collections for the  The issue of non-presentation of evidence of Forensic Chemist Bravo was
sales of the day. never raised in the lower courts. This is for the first time, on appeal.
 He said that he saw a white Toyota car outside his residence, the same o Objection to evidence CANNOT be raised for the first time on
being offered to him for sale. appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence
 He allegedly refused but agreed to test-drive the said car. It was then that offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such
he was allegedly stopped by the police and was ordered to give up his objection he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal.
attaché case and forcible taken to the police station. It was there that he  The familiar rule in this jurisdiction is that the inadmissibility of certain
was accused that said case contained the illegal substance. documents upon the ground of hearsay if not urged before the court below
CANNOT, for the first time, be raised on appeal.
TC DECISION: The trial court gave credence to the prosecution’s story of a legitimate  Finally, as to the reports of Forensic Chemist Bravo, it must be stressed that
buy bust operation and testimony of witnesses despite the non-presentation of the as an NBI Forensic Chemist, Bravo is a public officer, and his report carries
NBI Forensics Chemist who tested and confirmed that substance found in the the presumption of regularity in the performance of his function and duty.
accused possession is indeed shabu. The accused interposed the defense of frame-
up and alleged that the evidence was merely ‘planted.’ He is GUILTY of illegal * BASICALLY – Just because the party agreed to dispense the testimony of the
possession of shabu. Forensic Chemist, he is already admitting that the item seized is shabu.
* There was valid warrantless arrest and seizure in this case because he caught in
UY’S CONTENTIONS: The prosecution should present NBI Forensic Chemist. His flagrante delicto. Petition DENIED. Ramon Chua Uy is GUILTY.
testimony cannot be waived since only he could say whether the substance