Scribd
Upload
54 views1 page

Court Upholds Drug Conviction Appeal

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Norberto Del Monte y Gapay for selling illegal drugs. The Court found that while the police failed to photograph Del Monte with the seized evidence or conduct a physical inventory as required by law, Del Monte did not raise this issue during his trial. By raising the issue of alleged procedural lapses for the first time on appeal, Del Monte's objection was deemed waived. Furthermore, non-compliance with inventory and photographing requirements does not alone render seized drugs inadmissible. The prosecution established the elements of the crime of illegal drug sale, showing the sale occurred and identifying the drugs in court.

Uploaded by

Hoven Macasinag
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
54 views1 page

Court Upholds Drug Conviction Appeal

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Norberto Del Monte y Gapay for selling illegal drugs. The Court found that while the police failed to photograph Del Monte with the seized evidence or conduct a physical inventory as required by law, Del Monte did not raise this issue during his trial. By raising the issue of alleged procedural lapses for the first time on appeal, Del Monte's objection was deemed waived. Furthermore, non-compliance with inventory and photographing requirements does not alone render seized drugs inadmissible. The prosecution established the elements of the crime of illegal drug sale, showing the sale occurred and identifying the drugs in court.

Uploaded by

Hoven Macasinag
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

G.R. No.

179940, April 23, 2008


People vs. NORBERTO DEL MONTE Y GAPAY alias “OBET”

Facts:
Accused-appellant questioned his conviction, contending that the evidence against him
should have been rendered inadmissible for failure to comply with Section 21 of RA 9165.

Ruling:
Accused-appellants claim that police failed to take pictures of him with the evidence and that
the police, who had initial custody, failed to conduct physical inventory was raised only during
appeal.

The court held that it is already late for accused-appellant to do this.

The law excuses non-compliance under justifiable grounds. However, whatever justifiable
grounds may excuse the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation in this case from
complying with Section 21 will remain unknown, because appellant did not question during
trial the safekeeping of the items seized from him. Indeed, the police officers' alleged
violations of Sections 21 and 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 were not raised before the trial
court but were instead raised for the first time on appeal. In no instance did appellant least
intimate at the trial court that there were lapses in the safekeeping of seized items that
affected their integrity and evidentiary value. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the
first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so
state in the form of objection. Without such objection he cannot raise the question for the first
time on appeal.

The Court also added that, non-compliance with Section 21 of said law, particularly the
making of the inventory and the photographing of the drugs confiscated and/or seized, will
not render the drugs inadmissible in evidence.

Afterall, all the elements necessary to prosecute sale of illegal drugs had been
established. The prosecution clearly showed that the sale of the drugs actually happened and
that the shabu subject of the sale was brought and identified in court.

The court sustained accused-appellant’s conviction.

You might also like