Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 20 views

    Lanier Vs PP

    Uploaded by

    Alexa Torrillo
    The police conducted a test-buy operation at the petitioners' residence where they purchased drugs. The petitioners were charged but filed a motion to quash, which was denied. They appealed to the DOJ, which ruled in their favor by ordering the charges withdrawn due to believing the evidence was planted. However, the CA reversed this decision, finding probable cause and reinstating the charges. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's ruling, finding that the DOJ overstepped its jurisdiction by assessing the merits of the defense, and that the trial court should have conducted its own evaluation rather than deferring to the DOJ.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Lanier Vs PP

    Uploaded by

    Alexa Torrillo
    20 views1 page
    The police conducted a test-buy operation at the petitioners' residence where they purchased drugs. The petitioners were charged but filed a motion to quash, which was denied. They appealed to the DOJ, which ruled in their favor by ordering the charges withdrawn due to believing the evidence was planted. However, the CA reversed this decision, finding probable cause and reinstating the charges. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's ruling, finding that the DOJ overstepped its jurisdiction by assessing the merits of the defense, and that the trial court should have conducted its own evaluation rather than deferring to the DOJ.

    Original Title

    [6] Lanier vs PP.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The police conducted a test-buy operation at the petitioners' residence where they purchased drugs. The petitioners were charged but filed a motion to quash, which was denied. They appealed to the DOJ, which ruled in their favor by ordering the charges withdrawn due to believing the evidence was planted. However, the CA reversed this decision, finding probable cause and reinstating the charges. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's ruling, finding that the DOJ overstepped its jurisdiction by assessing the merits of the defense, and that the trial court should have conducted its own evaluation rather than deferring to the DOJ.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    20 views1 page

    Lanier Vs PP

    Uploaded by

    Alexa Torrillo
    The police conducted a test-buy operation at the petitioners' residence where they purchased drugs. The petitioners were charged but filed a motion to quash, which was denied. They appealed to the DOJ, which ruled in their favor by ordering the charges withdrawn due to believing the evidence was planted. However, the CA reversed this decision, finding probable cause and reinstating the charges. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's ruling, finding that the DOJ overstepped its jurisdiction by assessing the merits of the defense, and that the trial court should have conducted its own evaluation rather than deferring to the DOJ.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    [6] Barry Lanier and Perlita vs People of the Philippines

    G.R. No. 189176, March 19, 2014


    Perez, J.

    Facts:
    The police operatives conducted a test-buy at petitioners’ residence in Barangay Balabag, Boracay Island
    where they were able to purchase P5,000.00 worth of shabu and P1,000.00 worth of marijuana from
    petitioners. On the basis of the test-buy operation, they were able to secure a search warrant from the
    RTC of Aklan.
    A Receipt for Property Seized was prepared by SPO1 Nathaniel A. Tan, but petitioners refused to sign the
    same. Thereafter, petitioners were placed under arrest. The assistant prosecutor of Kalibo filed an
    Information charging the petitioners. The petitioners filed a Motion to Quash the Information before the
    RTC of Kalibo but the RTC denied the motion and remanded the case to the provincial prosecutor for
    preliminary investigation. The prosecutor upheld the Information and directed the return of the records to
    the RTC for disposition.
    Petitioners filed a petition for review before the DOJ. The Sec. of Justice favored the petitioner on the
    belief that the evidences seized were planted. The secretary, in a Resolution, directed the prosecutor to
    withdraw the Information before the RTC. RTC then granted the Motion to Withdraw Information by the
    prosecutor.
    OSG filed to the CA a petition for certiorari seeking to annul the Resolution of the DOJ. The CA found
    probable cause to sustain the petitioners’ indictment and reinstated the Information against the petitioners.
    CA nullified and set aside the DOJ Resolution and the Order of the RTC.

    Issue:
    WoN the CA erred in reversing the DOJ resolution which nullified the prosecutor’s resolution finding
    probable cause to indict petitioners for illegal possession of prohibited drugs and the RTC Order granting
    the Motion to Withdraw the Information.

    Ruling:
    No. The CA did not commit any reversible error. In Crespo v Mogul, the Court held that once a criminal
    Complaint or Information is filed in court, any disposition of the case, dismissal, acquittal or conviction
    rests within the exclusive jurisdiction, competence, and discretion of the trial court. The rule applies to a
    Motion of the public prosecutor to dismiss the case even before or after the arraignment of the accused.
    When the Secretary of Justice made a determination and concluded that the evidences were planted, he
    went into the merits of the defense and exceeded his jurisdiction.
    On the part of the RTC, it having acquired jurisdiction over the case, is not bound by the Resolution of
    the DOJ but is required to evaluate it before proceeding further with the trial. While the Secretary’s ruling
    is persuasive, it is not binding on courts.

    The RTC clearly deferred to the finding of probable cause by the Secretary of Justice without doing its
    ownindependent evaluation.1âwphi1 The trial court even expressed its apprehension that no prosecutor
    would be willing toprosecute the case should the motion to withdraw be denied. The only matter
    discussed by the trial court was itsconcurrence with the DOJ relative to the service and conduct of the
    search for illegal drugs. The trial court declaredthat the evidence is inadmissible in view of the manner
    the search warrant was served. Settled is the rule that thepresence or absence of the elements of the
    crime is evidentiary in nature and is a matter of defense, the truth ofwhich can be best passed upon after
    a full-blown trial on the merits. In the case at bar, the grounds relied upon bypetitioners should be fully
    explained and threshed out not in a preliminary investigation but during trial as the sameare matters of
    defense involving factual issues.

    You might also like