The accused, xxx, was charged with violating P.D. 1619 for possessing and sniffing rugby, a volatile substance used to induce intoxication. Two police officers testified that they witnessed xxx sniffing rugby from a cellophane bag. Forensic testing confirmed the substance was toluene, a volatile chemical. The court found the police officers' testimony credible and ruled xxx guilty based on the evidence. xxx was sentenced to 6 months and 1 day to 1 year imprisonment and fined 4,000 pesos.
The accused, xxx, was charged with violating P.D. 1619 for possessing and sniffing rugby, a volatile substance used to induce intoxication. Two police officers testified that they witnessed xxx sniffing rugby from a cellophane bag. Forensic testing confirmed the substance was toluene, a volatile chemical. The court found the police officers' testimony credible and ruled xxx guilty based on the evidence. xxx was sentenced to 6 months and 1 day to 1 year imprisonment and fined 4,000 pesos.
The accused, xxx, was charged with violating P.D. 1619 for possessing and sniffing rugby, a volatile substance used to induce intoxication. Two police officers testified that they witnessed xxx sniffing rugby from a cellophane bag. Forensic testing confirmed the substance was toluene, a volatile chemical. The court found the police officers' testimony credible and ruled xxx guilty based on the evidence. xxx was sentenced to 6 months and 1 day to 1 year imprisonment and fined 4,000 pesos.
The accused, xxx, was charged with violating P.D. 1619 for possessing and sniffing rugby, a volatile substance used to induce intoxication. Two police officers testified that they witnessed xxx sniffing rugby from a cellophane bag. Forensic testing confirmed the substance was toluene, a volatile chemical. The court found the police officers' testimony credible and ruled xxx guilty based on the evidence. xxx was sentenced to 6 months and 1 day to 1 year imprisonment and fined 4,000 pesos.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 3
Republic of the Philippines
8th Judicial Region
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES xxx PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff; Criminal Case No. xxx For: VIOLATION OF P.D. 1619 -versusxxx Accused. x-------------------------------------------x DECISION xxx is charged with the offense of Violation of P.D. No. 1619 on September 3, 2012. The information reads as follows: That on or about the 14th day of March 2015, in the City of xxx, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously possess one (1) transparent cellophane containing rugby, a volatile substance that can induce or produce intoxication which accused used in sniffing/inhaling at the time he was arrested by apprehending officers.
When arraigned on March 30, 2015, accused, duly assisted
by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. At the pre-trial, the following exhibits for the prosecution were marked as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit
A 1 piece bladed weaponn (reserved);
B 1 pieace cellophane containing rugby (reserved); C Letter Request for chemical analysis dated March 14, 2015; D Chemistry Report dated March 14, 2015; E Certificate of Field Test Result dated March 14, 2015.
Defense marked only one document which is the Chemistry
Request for chemincal analysis as Exhibit 1. At the trial, the prosecution presented its first witness, PO2 xxx, who testified on direct examination through his Amended Judicial Affidavit1 and confirmed his signature as the affiant thereof. He narrates that he has been a regular member of the Philipine National Police (PNP) for five years and designated as member of the Mobile Patrol Unit. He, along with PO2 xxx was conducting routine mobile patrol along the area of Magsaysay Blvd., xxx, to preempt any untoward incident and for police visibility in the area. While roving in the said place, particularly at the back of the stage at Plaza xxx, he saw a male person whom he later knew as xxx, who was in the act of sniffing yellowish substance commonly known as rugby, from inside a transparent 1 Records, pp. 37-41. Page 1 of 3
cellophane. They immediately alighted from the police car to
apprehend the accused, who at first, tried to evade arrest, but was later on caught by the two officers. Recovered from him was a bladed weapon and one piece of transparent cellophane filled with suspected yellowish substance known as rugby. He identified the latter in court which was marked as Exhibit B, 2 as well as the Request for Chemical Analysis marked as Exhibit C 3 and the signature of PO1 xxx, marked as Exhibit C-1. Prosecutions second witness, PO2 xxx, corroborated the testimony of PO2 xxx through his amended judicial affidavit and identified Exhibits B, C, and C-1. Third and final prosecution witness, PCI xxx, a forensic chemist, conducted the laboratory examination of the specimen subject matter of this case. He testitied that he received a Request for Chemical Analysis dated 14 March 2015, which he identified in court as the one marked as Exhibit C. He also testified that he received the same one (1) piece of transparent cellophane filled with rugby substance from PO1 xxx, R. B. and identified it in court. The witness conducted a laboratory and qualitative examination on the subject specimen which yielded a positive result to the test of toluene, which is a volatile substance. He reduced his findings in writing and issued a Chemistry Report dated 14 March 2015, and identified the same in court as the one marked as Exhibit D,4 including his signature thereon. The Courts Ruling Under Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 1619, quoted in part as follows: Section 2. The use or possession of volatile substances for the purpose of inhalation to induce or produce intoxication or any of the conditions described in the preceding section shall be punishable by imprisonment ranging from six months and one day to four years and a fine ranging from six hundred to four thousand, pesos: xxx
The evidence offered by the prosecution, through the
testimony of PO2 xxx and PO2 xxx III, could only be described by a person who actually witnessed the event that took place on March 14, 2015. Only trustworthy witnesses could have narrated with such detail and realism what really happened on the date referred to. The testimony of PCI xxx, Jr. sealed the case for the prosecution, which affirmed the fact that accused was inhaling a volatile substance which is prohibited under the law. 2 Records, p. 128 3 Records, p. 105 4 Records, p. 106 Page 2 of 3
As has been repeatedly held, credence shall be given to the
narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there be evidence to the contrary. Moreover, in the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute such crime to petitioner, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty shall prevail over the mere denial of the accused. In the case under consideration, there is no evidence of any improper motive on the part of the police officers who apprehended the accused. Despite several opportunities given to the accused for him to present evidence for his defense, he failed to appear in court to do so; thus, prompting this court to declare a waiver on accuseds part to present evidence and deemed the instant case ripe for decision. WHEREFORE, this Court finds accused xxx, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for Violation of Section 2 of P.D. No. 1619, and hereby sentences him to a straight imprisonment of six months and one day to one year and to pay a fine of P4,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. SO ORDERED. IN CHAMBERS, xxx, November 28, 2016.
