The Court of Appeals has sustained the decision made by the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City sentencing a Filipino-Chinese national to a life imprisonment after he was found guilty of manufacturing and possessing illegal drugs in 2011.
In a 20-page decision, the CA’s Eight Division through Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan denied the appeal of accused Lawrence Yu seeking the reversal of the trial court’s decision.
Lawrence Yu was arrested on June 30, 2011 during a raid conducted by operatives of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency in Filinvest East Homes, Antipolo City, Rizal.
The PDEA agents found and subsequently dismantled a kitchen-type laboratory and confiscated several self-sealed plastic bags containing white powdery substance suspected to be shabu, self-sealed plastic bags containing tablets, assorted chemicals and various laboratory equipment and paraphernalia.
His bodyguard Elmer Doctor and a certain Kisses dela Cruz were also arrested during the raid but was later on cleared by the court of any criminal liabilities.
In seeking for a reversal of his conviction, Yu argued that the trial court committed error when it gave weight to evidence presented by the prosecution which were not formally offered, thus, rendering the search illegal and the seized items inadmissible as evidence against him before the court.
The accused argued that the PDEA agents exceeded their authority in the implementation of the search warrant, thus, the evidence they had gathered should have been treated by the trial court as “fruits of the poisonous tree.”
“Appellant Yu/s argument that the PDEA agents exceeded their authority in the implementation of the search warrant because the warrant only permitted the search of the vehicles is misplaced,” the CA ruled.
It was clear based on the copy of the warrant, according to the CA, that it covers the premises of Block 6, Lot 2, Irvine Place, Filinvest East Home, Antipolo City and not merely the vehicles found therein.
“Hence the argument of the appellant that the PDEA agents exceeded their authority has no leg to stand on,” the CA ruled.
The appellate court junked the argument of the accused-appellant’s use of the doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree in seeking his acquittal.
The CA held that the trial court has earlier ruled that the search warrant was validly issued and that the pieces of evidence gathered from his residence are considered legally obtained.
“Undoubtedly, the doctrine relied upon by the appellant has no application in this case,” it said.
Associate Justices Celia Librea-Leagogo and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob concurred with the ruling.
