Pasay buying Heroin

__________________________

📍 Verified store!

📍 Guarantees! Quality! Reviews!

__________________________

▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼

▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲

Pasay buying Heroin

Email or phone Password Forgot account? Create new account. It looks like you were misusing this feature by going too fast. Forgot account?

The Killing Squads: Inside the Philippines’ ‘War on Drugs’

Pasay buying Heroin

CR-HC No. The preventive imprisonment which said accused have undergone during the pendency of this case, shall be credited in full in their favor, in the computation of their sentence, provided they agreed voluntary in writing to abide with the same disciplinary rules and resolutions imposed upon convicted prisoners. The Contrary to law. The RTC denied both motions in its Order \[9\] dated November 5, on the ground that the averments therein are evidentiary matters that could be properly threshed out in a full-blown trial. Fatima Liwalug Atty. SI Otic instructed the informant to gather more information. Alberto shall depart for China later that day. Alberto has a Chinese residency visa and has previously transported drugs outside the country. SI Otic verified the status of Vargas and discovered that she is also an Overseas Filipino Worker who works as a teacher in China and has a residency visa. Upon their arrival at the Hotel at around a. He described her as a thin lady, more or less five feet tall, fair-skinned, and has long sexy brown hair. SI Otic and Atty. Liwalug positioned themselves along the driveway. SI Malaluan and SI Escurel remained inside one of the vehicles parked 10 to 15 meters away from the cafeteria. Sanchez told SI Otic that this was Alberto, a client of the hotel. At a. They briefly exchanged pleasantries. SI Saul overheard Albe1io telling Vargas ' \[k\]adarating ko lang. Mamaya aalis na rin ako. Vargas was carrying a black trolley bag while Alberto was carrying a laptop bag. They briefly talked. Vargas told Alberto '\[e\]to na yung bag. May Iaman na yan, padala ni Choks. Vargas remained in the cafeteria. They told him that they received information that the bag he was carrying contained illegal drugs. Alberto agreed to do so. He was accompanied by Atty. Liwalug and the other NBI operatives. When Vargas opened the door, SI Otic invited her to come with them to the office because she was identified as the owner of the suspected luggage. Vargas assented and said ' \[s\]asama naman ako. Wala akong ginagawang masama. Liwalug said that they did not leave their office in the meantime. Tanod Sadasip, Jr. Afterwards, they opened the black trolley bag and found nothing of consequence inside. However, SI Escurel noticed that the sides of the bag were protruding. SI Escurel informed Alberto that he will open the side of the bag. Alberto agreed. SI Escurel used a knife to slash the bulging part of the bag and found a pack of brown envelopes inside. They asked Alberto if they could open the envelopes to which he acceded. The brown envelopes contained white powdery substance. Based on his experience, SI Otic determined the substance to be heroin. Liwalug videotaped the opening of the luggage, though the battery of the camera died midway. At p. He met Vargas, who works at a travel agency, sometime in during a Filipino gathering in China. He travelled with her to Malaysia in upon her invitation. In July of the same year, he went back to the Philippines to attend the burial of his brother. He went home again during the Beijing Olympics in because foreign nationals were required to secure invitation letters for their residence visa. He told her that he was going to the Philippines for a five-day vacation to visit his family in Virac, Catanduanes. Vargas texted him again on July 30, asking him if they can meet up in Manila. Alberto replied that he will try to meet her. Alberto left Catanduanes on July 31, Thus, Alberto rode the Hotel's shuttle van and met Vargas at the Hotel's cafeteria. After exchanging pleasantries, she informed him that she had a gift for him. Vargas also asked if he could carry some items for her friends back in China. Vargas said that her friend will fetch Alberto from the airport upon his arrival. Accused-appellants then proceeded to Vargas' room where she showed Alberto the Philippine-made products placed inside her black trolley bag. Thereafter, accused-appellants went back to the cafeteria. Alberto boarded the shuttle van while the black trolley bag was placed at its back portion. He was carrying his own laptop bag. Alberto left for the airport at around a. He invited Alberto for questioning and held his hand tightly. The man pushed Alberto inside another vehicle that was parked nearby. He asked for his passport and cellphone which Alberto gave. The man also asked for his bag. When Alberto showed it to him, he told him not to open it. The man asked him how many bags he was carrying to which he replied that he only had the laptop bag. The driver then said ' Nilagay ko na sir sa likod. Ok na yan. Thereafter, he called up someone and said 'Positive, positive. The black trolley bag was brought to a cubicle inside the office. Pictures of Alberto and the black trolley bag were taken. After waiting for several hours, the black trolley bag was finally opened at p. When accused-appellants were brought to where the bag was, they saw that it was already opened and slashed on the sides. Brown envelopes containing dangerous drugs were inside the bag. Alberto then confronted Vargas about the drugs found inside the bag but she denied knowing that it was placed inside. Alberto did not file any administrative complaint against any of the operatives of the NBI. Nothing happened when she passed through the routine inspection at NAIA. She was carrying two bags, one of which contained gifts for her friends in China. Vargas purchased these gifts from Malaysia, at the Duty Free shops, and at shops near the Hotel. She checked in at the Hotel and contacted Alberto to meet with him. When he arrived, they briefly talked before going to her room. Once inside the room, she showed him the gifts she was going to give to her friends in China, which were placed inside a black trolley bag. Afterwards, they went back to the Hotel's cafeteria. The driver of the shuttle van placed the black trolley bag at the back of the van. When she was leaving the mall, several men with big body built approached her and invited her to come with them. They claimed that Alberto was at the NBI office. Vargas and the men returned to the Hotel. The men packed her belongings and confiscated her laptop. Vargas checked out of the Hotel and arrived at the NBI at around p. She saw Alberto but they waited in different cubicles. She did not see the black trolley bag. SI Saul testified that they went to the Hotel in response to the information received by SI Otic that Vargas would bring heroin to the country and stay at the Hotel. At the Hotel, he saw accused-appellants together at the cafeteria. Vargas gave a trolley bag to Alberto and he brought the bag with him to the shuttle van. SI Otic suspected that Alberto was carrying the bag containing the heroin. Alberto accepted their invitation. At the NBI, they discovered two brown envelopes inside the bag. The envelopes contained powdery substance. Therefore, the legality of accused-appellants' arrest can no longer be questioned. In any case, there was legal basis to arrest accused-appellants. Heroin was found inside the black trolley bag after it was inspected in the presence of accused-appellants, representatives from the DOJ and the media, and barangay officials. They failed to show any ill motive on the part of the NBI operatives to falsely charge them. As such, the testimony of the NBI operatives are entitled to full weight and credit. The CA held that the essential element of illegal transportation of dangerous drugs is the movement of dangerous drug from one place to another. Alberto even admitted that he met the arresting officers for the first time on July 31, Accordingly, the testimonies of the NBI operatives must be respected and the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties must be upheld. It follows then that the subsequent seizure of the illegal drugs was also valid. She found that it tested positive for heroin. SI Escurel identified the specimens when he testified before the court. Accused-appellants did not submit proof that the evidence submitted by the prosecution was tampered with. After the CA denied it, accused-appellants appealed before this Court. In addition to adopting their briefs before the CA, accused-appellants also filed their respective supplemental briefs. The NBI operatives did not have any warrant against her. She was not caught in the act of committing a crime that would justify her warrantless arrest. Vargas was neither informed of her rights nor assisted by counsel. She was scared. Alberto himself protested against the NBI operatives because he was about to leave the country. The NBI operatives had full control and possession of the bag which they examined at p. They conducted an inventory of the bag an hour later. Accused-appellants were not present during the inspection. Pictures were only taken in the presence of a representative from the media and the DOJ at 11 p. It was not explained why the identity of the lady courier was suddenly changed to Vargas. They had sufficient time to secure a warrant of arrest but did not do so. The NBI operatives took the trolley bag from Alberto and accused-appellants did not know where they kept it. They did not explain or justify their lapses. However, SI Saul denied participating in the search. SI Escurel said that he was the one who opened the bag. Another inconsistency is SI Escurel's testimony that Atty. Liwalug took pictures during the examination of the bag but Atty. Liwalug herself denied taking pictures. She claimed that she only took a video of the proceedings. If he was merely invited, then the Booking Sheet and Arrest Report would have stated otherwise. In addition, Alberto did not have any opportunity to reject the invitation from the NBI operatives because they forced him inside a vehicle. Alberto was not in a position to give valid consent to the search because he was under the control of the NBI operatives and was not assisted by counsel. Accused-appellants' approval of the search was not sought and the bag was already opened when they saw it. Independent witnesses, such as the representatives from the DOJ and the media as well as the barangay officials, did not testify to affirm that Alberto consented to the search of the bag. Alberto's approval of the search cannot be presumed simply because he failed to object to it. Since the search was illegal, any object obtained as a result cannot be admitted as evidence against Alberto for being the fruit of a poisonous tree. When the substance was presented in court, he said that he did not remember it and has not even seen it because it was yellowish. He later tried to claim that what he saw inside the envelopes was a yellowish substance. Thus, the substance supposedly confiscated from accused-appellants was not the same one presented in court. In addition, SI Escurel claimed that Atty. Liwalug took pictures while the bag was being searched but Atty. Liwalug denied this. The pictures should not have been admitted as evidence because it was not properly identified by the person who actually took it. Even if the black trolley bag contained heroin, it cannot be presumed that Alberto was aware that it was inside the bag given to him by Vargas. Plaintiff-appellee also presented the corpus delicti in court. Thus, it was able to prove that accused-appellants transported drugs in violation of Section 5, Article II of R. Plaintiff-appellee refuted Vargas' claim that she was not caught in flagrante delicto. Alberto arrived at the Hotel empty-handed but carried a trolley bag after he went with Vargas to her room. Clearly, Vargas acted as a principal by direct participation. Plaintiff-appellee also insisted that the chain of custody rule was observed in this case. Alberto was in possession of the trolley bag from the time that he was invited to go to the NBI until the bag was inspected in his presence as well as that of the required witnesses under Section 21 of R. SI Escurel was the one who slashed the side of the trolley bag. The items did not pass through any other person apart from him and Alberto. Ruling of the Court We dismiss the appeal. To be convicted under this provision, movement of the dangerous drugs from one place to another is essential. Asislo, \[77\] We clarified that'\[w\]hen the circumstances establish the purpose of an accused to transport and the fact of transportation itself, there should be no question as to the perpetration of the criminal act. The fact that there is actual conveyance suffices to support a finding that the act of transporting was committed. At the NBI office, the black trolley bag was searched and substance suspected to be heroin was found inside. Calalo confirmed that the substance is heroin after examining it. It is thus clear that accused-appellants illegally transported heroin, a dangerous drug. However, accused-appellants question the legality of their arrest. Arrest is defined under Section 1, Rule of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure as the taking of a person into custody in order that he or she may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense. A person is arrested when there is an actual restraint of the person arrested or by that person's voluntary submission to the custody of the one making the arrest. We have long settled that the application of actual force, manual touching of the body, or physical restraint, or a formal declaration of arrest, is not required. The intention on the part of one of the parties to arrest the other, and the intent on the part of the other to submit, under the belief and impression that submission is necessary, is sufficient. Vargas responded that she will be coming with them. Aside from their bare claims, accused-appellants did not present any other evidence to establish that they were arrested. Moreover, accused-appellants' own counsel admitted that they were merely invited by the NBI operatives. Consequently, it is deemed waived. There is no showing that they even made an extrajudicial admission or confession. Accused-appellants also questioned the validity of the search of the bags. A search may be conducted even in the absence of a warrant under the following circumstances: 1 search incidental to a lawful arrest; 2 seizure 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. Consent to a warrantless search must be unequivocal, specific, intelligently given, and unattended by duress or coercion. Mere passive conformity or silence is insufficient. This includes the environment in which the consent was ostensibly given, such as the presence of coercive police procedures. When the witnesses arrived, SI Escurel sought the permission of accused-appellants before searching the bags. Alberto responded by saying '\[o\]k, sir, you can open that. Ilejay, Brgy. Accused-appellants' counsel admitted that the bag was opened in front of them. Even if accused-appellants were investigated in a hostile environment, though the NBI office does not qualify as such, that factor alone will not taint the proceedings because of the exigent need on the part of the government agencies to act with dispatch to prevent the transportation of almost a kilogram of heroin from the Philippines to China. Without a clear showing that the rights of accused were violated, operatives have to devise a procedure altogether different from a drug buy-bust operation to be able to apprehend drug couriers bringing in and out of the country illegal drugs and all sorts of prohibited substances. A routine security airport security procedure is a recognized exception to the prohibition against warrantless search and seizure. Holder refusing to be searched shall not be allowed to board the aircraft. O'Cochlain \[\] that airport searches are sanctioned 'because of the magnitude and pervasiveness of the danger to the public safety and the overriding concern has been the threat of death or serious bodily injury to members of the public posed by the introduction of inherently lethal weapons or bombs. Unlike a routine search where a prohibited drug was found by chance, a search on the person of the passenger or on his personal belongings in a deliberate and conscious effort to discover an illegal drug is not authorized under the exception to the warrant and probable cause requirement. When O'Cochlain was at the final security checkpoint, he was subjected to a pat down and was asked to take out the Marlboro box from his pocket. The box apparently contained two rolled sticks of dried marijuana leaves. We ruled that the seizure of the marijuana sticks from O'Cochlain cannot be justified as a result of a permissible airport search. But because O'Cochlain agreed to be pat down, it is a valid consented warrantless search. The series of actions they took were interconnected. SI Otic received a tip that Vargas will arrive from Malaysia carrying an undetermined amount of heroin and will proceed to the Hotel where she will meet with Alberto to give him the package. They went to her room and when they returned, Alberto now had in his possession a black trolley bag. The NBI operatives need not wait for Alberto to actually check in before they may approach him and invite him to go to their office. Section 21 provides: Section The marking and inventory were also conducted by SI Escurel in their presence. Calalo found that the contents of the brown envelopes were positive for heroin. The validity of the warrantless search conducted against them as well as their warrantless arrest were established. Compliance with Section 21 of R. The penalties imposed by the RTC were compliant with R. Accordingly, accused-appellants' appeal must be dismissed and the ruling of the CA must be upheld. Peralta, C. Diamante, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Manuel M. Barrios and Maria Elisa Sempio Dy: id. Sulla, Jr. Macaspac y Llanete , G. People , Phil. Hernandez , Phil. Usman , Phil. Cogaed , Phil. Yanson , G. Suzuki , Phil. Cadidia , Phil. View printer friendly version. Second , the search conducted on the bags was illegal.

Pasay buying Heroin