Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 72 views

    Panuncio v. People

    Uploaded by

    SUSVILLA IAN
    The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Rosario Panuncio for falsifying public documents. While Panuncio claimed the search of her home was invalid since she was not present, the Court found that the search was conducted in the presence of two witnesses, as required by law. The Court also determined that Panuncio voluntarily signed documents acknowledging the orderly search. As the search was valid, the evidence collected, including falsified transportation documents, were admissible against Panuncio at trial. The Court affirmed the rulings of the lower courts finding Panuncio guilty of falsification.

    Copyright:

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

    Panuncio v. People

    Uploaded by

    SUSVILLA IAN
    72 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Rosario Panuncio for falsifying public documents. While Panuncio claimed the search of her home was invalid since she was not present, the Court found that the search was conducted in the presence of two witnesses, as required by law. The Court also determined that Panuncio voluntarily signed documents acknowledging the orderly search. As the search was valid, the evidence collected, including falsified transportation documents, were admissible against Panuncio at trial. The Court affirmed the rulings of the lower courts finding Panuncio guilty of falsification.

    Original Description:

    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 Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Rosario Panuncio for falsifying public documents. While Panuncio claimed the search of her home was invalid since she was not present, the Court found that the search was conducted in the presence of two witnesses, as required by law. The Court also determined that Panuncio voluntarily signed documents acknowledging the orderly search. As the search was valid, the evidence collected, including falsified transportation documents, were admissible against Panuncio at trial. The Court affirmed the rulings of the lower courts finding Panuncio guilty of falsification.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    72 views2 pages

    Panuncio v. People

    Uploaded by

    SUSVILLA IAN
    The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Rosario Panuncio for falsifying public documents. While Panuncio claimed the search of her home was invalid since she was not present, the Court found that the search was conducted in the presence of two witnesses, as required by law. The Court also determined that Panuncio voluntarily signed documents acknowledging the orderly search. As the search was valid, the evidence collected, including falsified transportation documents, were admissible against Panuncio at trial. The Court affirmed the rulings of the lower courts finding Panuncio guilty of falsification.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    ROSARIO S.

    PANUNCIO, Petitioner,
    vs.
    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
    G.R. NO. 165678 : July 17, 2009

    Facts: Land Transportation Office (LTO) and the Special Mission Group Task Force
    Lawin of the Presidential Anti-Crime Commission (PACC), armed with a Search Warrant
    issued by then Regional Trial Court, raided the residence of Rosario S. Panuncio
    (petitioner), a jeepney operator, at 204 E. Rodriguez, Sr. Avenue, Quezon City. The
    operatives confiscated LTO documents, 17 pieces of private vehicle plates, a copying
    machine, several typewriters, and other tools and equipment. One of the LTO
    documents confiscated was MVRR No. 63231478 issued to Manlite Transport
    Corporation (Manlite).

    Petitioner signed a certification of orderly search, together with Barangay Chairman


    Antonio Manalo (Manalo), petitioner's employee Myrna Velasco (Velasco), and one
    Cesar Nidua (Nidua). Petitioner, Manalo, Velasco, and Nidua also signed a Receipt of
    Property Seized. Juan V. Borra, Jr., Assistant Secretary for the LTO who was
    representing his office, filed a complaint against petitioner for violation of Articles 171,
    172, 176, and 315 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended; Presidential Decree
    No. 1730; Sections 31 and 56 of Republic Act No. 4136; and Batas Pambansa Blg. 43.
    An Information for violation of Article 172(1) in relation to Article 171 of the RPC was
    filed against petitioner. Petitioner filed a motion for reinvestigation, which the Regional
    Trial Court of Quezon City granted. The trial court gave the public prosecutor 20 days
    within which to submit his report on the reinvestigation. The Department of Justice,
    through State Prosecutor Mario A.M. Caraos, submitted its Resolution recommending
    that petitioner be prosecuted for falsification.

    The trial court set the arraignment where the petitioner entered a plea of not guilty.
    Thereafter, pre-trial and the trial of the case ensued. During the trial, a photocopy of the
    duplicate original of MVRR No. 63231478, which was a faithful reproduction of the
    document in LTO's file, was presented and compared with MVRR No. 63231478
    confiscated from petitioner's residence. Petitioner denied that she was the source of the
    falsified documents. She alleged that Manlite, which she used to co-own with her late
    husband, already stopped operating in April 1992 and her business was operating
    under the name Rosario Panuncio. She alleged that she was not at home when the raid
    took place, and when she returned home, the police authorities had already emptied her
    shelves and she was just forced to sign the search warrant, inventory receipt, and the
    certificate of orderly search. She further alleged that she was charged with falsification
    because she refused the police authorities' demand for money.

    The trial court found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
    falsification of a public document under Articles 171 and 172 of the RPC. The trial court
    ruled that the facts established by the prosecution were not substantially disputed by the
    defense. The trial court ruled that the raid yielded incriminatory evidence to support the
    theory that petitioner was engaged in falsifying LTO documents and license plate
    registration receipts. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's Decision with
    modification. The Court of Appeals further ruled that the Rules of Court do not require
    that the owner of the place to be searched be present during the conduct of the raid.
    The Court of Appeals noted that the search was conducted not only in the presence of
    petitioner but also in the presence of Manalo, Velasco, and Nidua.

    Issue: 1. Whether or not the search was regularly conducted; and


    2. Whether the evidence gathered during the search are admissible in evidence.

    Ruling: Petitioner assails the validity of the search which was allegedly conducted while
    she was not in the house. Petitioner alleges that since the search warrant was
    defective, the items seized during the search could not be used in evidence against her.
    Section 8, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court provides:

    SEC. 8. Search of house, room, or premises, to be made in presence of two witnesses -


    No search of a house, room, or any other premise shall be made except in the presence
    of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the
    latter, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality.

    Even assuming that petitioner or any lawful occupant of the house was not present
    when the search was conducted, the search was done in the presence of at least two
    witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality. Manalo was the
    barangay chairman of the place while Velasco was petitioner's employee. Petitioner
    herself signed the certification of orderly search when she arrived at her residence.
    Clearly, the requirements of Section 8, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court were complied
    with by the police authorities who conducted the search. Further, petitioner failed to
    substantiate her allegation that she was just forced to sign the search warrant, inventory
    receipt, and the certificate of orderly search. In fact, the records show that she signed
    these documents together with three other persons, including the barangay chairman
    who could have duly noted if petitioner was really forced to sign the documents against
    her will.

    Articles which are the product of unreasonable searches and seizures are inadmissible
    as evidence pursuant to Article III, Section 3(2) of the Constitution. However, in this
    case, we sustain the validity of the search conducted in petitioner's residence and, thus,
    the articles seized during the search are admissible in evidence against petitioner.

    You might also like