CA G.R. NO. 123456 People of The Philippines,: Plaintiff-Appellee
CA G.R. NO. 123456 People of The Philippines,: Plaintiff-Appellee
COURT OF APPEALS
Manila
Third DIVISION
- versus
NORMAN DIMAIN y BUENAFE,
Accused-Appellant,
x-------------------------------------x
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
3
II.
PARTIES .
..
5-6
PROSECUTIONS VIEW
DEFENSES VIEW
VI. ARGUMENTS
.
6-10
VII. PRAYER
10
AUTHORITIES CITED:
1. Gaerlan v. Court of Appeals
2. Gutib v. Court of Appeals
3. Malillin v. People , G.R. No. 172953, 30-April-08
4. Michigan v. DiFillippo, , 443 U.S. 31
5. People v. Cuizon,
6. People v. Lati
7. United States v. Humphries, 372 F. 3d 653
I
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
The trial court committed the following errors:
1.
2.
pipe when
unbroken chain of
custody
of
the
alleged
pipe.
3.
II
THE PARTIES
III
TIMELINESS OF THE APPEAL
2. Accused-appellant received on July 15 2010 the Decision of the
Regional Trial Court dated July 10 2010. A Notice of Appeal was
timely filed on July 20 2010. Accused received on July 25 2010
the Order from the Court of Appeals directing him to file his
Appeal Brief within fifteen (15) days from receipt.
Hence, this
timely compliance.
IV
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
An Information for Violation of Section 11(3), Article II, of R.A. No.
9165 (Illegal possession of Dangerous Drugs) was filed before the
Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 2, against the accused
NORMAN DIMAIN, committed as follows:
That on or about April 13, 2009, in the City of Manila,
Philippines, the said accused, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession and under his
custody and
residue containing
MARIJUANA,
dangerous
persons.
drug,
in
V
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
Prosecutions View:
3. PO3 Duran with P01 Cunanan and Laxa were at Concha Street, San
Andres Bukid, Manila2. At 1:45am April 13, 2009, they saw NORMAN
BUENAFE DIMAIN, accused, with two other companions holding
cigarette pipe3. They were five meters away from the accused when
1
2
3
TSN page 4
TSN page 4
6
TSN page 4
7
Joint Affidavit of Apprehension
8
Joint Affidavit of Apprehension
9
Joint Affidavit of Apprehension
10
Joint Affidavit of Apprehension
11
Joint Affidavit of Apprehension
12
TSN page 4, page 8
13
TSN page 6
14
TSN page 6
15
TSN page 14
16
TSN page 14
17
TSN page 15
18
TSN page 15
19
TSN page 15
20
TSN page 15
21
TSN page 16
22
TSN page 16
4
5
arrest Accused.
Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure lays
down the basic rules on lawful warrantless arrests, either by a peace
officer or a private person, as follows:
TSN
TSN
TSN
TSN
TSN
TSN
TSN
page
page
page
page
page
page
page
17
17
21
22
22
22
23
(4th Cir. 2004) held that: "[w]hile smelling marijuana does not
30
(People v. Cuizon, G.R. No. 109287, April 18, 1996, 256 SCRA 325, 341.)
considers
"whether
the
totality
of
the
circumstances
reasonable
marijuana.
for
him
to
believe
that
the
Accused
smoked
3.
suffi cient
27. All of the prosecutions evidence relied heavily on the seized pipe.
As the pipe is inadmissible as evidence, all of the prosecutions
evidences must be disregarded.
28. It is incumbent upon the prosecution to adduce evidence sufficient
to prove beyond reasonable doubt (a) the commission of the crime,
and (b) the precise degree of participation therein by the accused.31
The charges against an accused must be dismissed if there is no
competent or sufficient evidence adduced that would sustain the
charges against him.
29. It is well-settled rule that conviction for a criminal offense should be
based on clear and positive evidence and not on mere assumption. 32
The burden lies upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt rather that upon the accused to
prove that he is in fact innocent. 33 Failing in this, the presumption of
innocence will prevail.34
VI
P R A Y E R
WHEREFORE,
31
32
33
34
appellant as prayed for in his answer; to dismiss the case for his
guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.