People Vs Dichoso

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
plaintiff-appellee,vs. REDENTOR DICHOSO y DAGDAG, SONIA

DICHOSO y VINERABLE and JAIME PAGTAKHAN y BICOMONG,
G.R. Nos. 101216-18 June 4, 1993THIRD DIVISION(DAVIDE, JR., J.)
FACTS
 February 22, 1991, Narcotics commands of 4th regional unit stationed M. Paulino applied on
Search Warrant to be issued on the ouse of spouses Redentor Dichoso and Sonia Dichoso
located at Farconville Subd., Phase II, San Pablo City due to probable cause to believe that
indeed said spouses were keeping, selling and using an undetermined quantity of
methamphetamine hydrochloride (sic) (shabu) and marijuana in said residence.
 February 23, 1991, organized a team to serve Search Warrant No. 028 upon the spouses
Redentor Dichoso and Sonia Dichoso residing at Farconville Subd., Phase II, San Pablo City.
Evangelista, the team leader, was with S/Sgt. Fabian Gapiangao, Sgt. Antonio Tila, CIC Rolando
Besinio, Police Officer Michael Exconde and a driver.
 The old man led them to the Nipa house where inside Redentor, Jaime Pagtakhan and two other
persons were sitting near a small table with suspected shabu and paraphernalia on top thereof.
Taken aback the foursome did not move
 In the meantime Evangelista served a copy of the search warrant to Redentor.
 Evangelista discovered 200 grams more or less of suspected marijuana wrapped in plastic inside
a cabinet which was standing on the right side upon entering the door of the nipa house.
 Likewise discovered by him inside the cabinet are six (6) decks of suspected shabu wrapped in an
aluminun foil and the "Golden Gate" notebook (Exhibit F) containing the list of suspected
customers of dangerous and regulated drugs together with the corresponding quantity and
prices. From Pagtakhan's right hand, Evangelista recovered a small quantity of suspected shabu.
Court Ruling
On 17 June 1991, the trial court promulgated its decision,7 dated 11 June 1991, finding Jaime Pagtakhan
and Redentor Dichoso guilty as charged. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
On the basis of the evidence on record, the Court finds that Redentor Dichoso violated Section 15,
Article III and Section 4, Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act. Also, it is the finding of the Court that
Jaime Pagtakhan violated Section 16 of said Act. Both of them should be made to suffer the
consequences of their unlawful acts.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby renders judgment in Criminal Case No. 6710- SP
finding JAIME PAGTAKHAN guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged in the Information,
hereby sentences him to suffer the straight penalty of Six (6) years and one (1) of prision mayor and to
pay the costs. In case he files an appeal, the bailbond for his provisional liberty is hereby fixed at double
the amount of his present bailbond.
In Criminal Cases Nos. 6711-SP and 6712-SP, the Court hereby renders judgment finding accused
REDENTOR DICHOSO y DAGDAG guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offenses charged in the
Information’s, hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion Perpetua with all its accessory
penalties, to pay a fine of P20,000.00 and the costs of suit.8
ISSUES
WON if the Search warrant no 028 Is illegally done by the Police Officer which result the
arrest of Rendor Dichoso and Jaime Pagtakhan on the dependant house address stated on
search warrant.
WON the evidence found on the Residence of Rendor Dichoso are planted by the Police
officer which result tto frame up
HELD
Since Search Warrant No. 028 is valid, the articles seized by virtue of its execution may be admitted in
evidence. Consequently, the trial committed no error in denying the appellant's motion to quash the said
warrant and refusing to dismiss the information’s filed against him.
Requisites of Warrant.
 Issue by Judge
 There must be a Probable Cause
 It must be Specific, Place, Person, and area to be search
 Must be writing
 It must have valid period
 Properly served and executed
This Court rejects the appellant's claim that he was framed. This defense requires strong and convincing
evidence because of the presumption that the law enforcement agents acted in the regular performance
of their official duties. 18 Appellant failed to rebut this presumption. He did not even attempt to prove
that the NARCOM agents who obtained the search warrant, conducted the search, and recovered the
prohibited drugs had motives other than to enforce the law and stem the menace of drug addiction and
trafficking which has already reached an alarming level and has spawned a network of incorrigible,
cunning and dangerous operations. 19 It may be stressed here that the defense of frame-up can be
easily fabricated and the accused in drugs cases almost always take refuge in such a defense.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the appealed Decision of the Regional Trial Court of San Pablo
City, dated 11 June 1991, in Criminal Cases Nos. 6711-SP (91) and 6712-SP (91) is hereby modified. As
modified, accused-appellant REDENTOR DICHOSO y DAGDAG is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of violation of Section 16, Article III of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (R.A. No. 6425), as
amended, in Criminal Case No. 6711-SP (91) and Section 8 of Article II of the said Act in Criminal Case
No. 6712-SP (91). Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is hereby sentenced in each case to
suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from eight (8) years as minimum to twelve (12) years as
maximum, and to pay a fine of Twelve Thousand Pesos (P12,000.00). Costs against the accused-
appellant. SO ORDERED.

People Vs Dichoso

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Dichoso

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

plaintiff-appellee,vs. REDENTOR DICHOSO y DAGDAG, SONIA

G.R. Nos. 101216-18 June 4, 1993THIRD DIVISION(DAVIDE, JR., J.)

You might also like