Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=40429:g-r-no-126174-august-29,-2000-people-of-the-phil-v-carmen-lacson&amp;catid=1396&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 04:09:00+00:00

Document:
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CARMEN LACSON Y OLVES, Accused-Appellant.
"That on or about January 8, 1993, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not having been authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any regualted (sic) drug, did then and there wilfully and unlawfully deliver and transport fifty pieces of transparent plastic bags (or tea bags) with markings (L.M.) each containing about five grams (5g) of white chrystaline (sic) substance known as SHABU containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, which is a regulated drug.
"Specimen(s) submitted: One (1) box (marked Hawk) and containing fifty (50) pieces of small transparent plastic bags (or teabags) with markings (LM), each containing about five grams (59) of white crystalline substance, with counter markings.
The prosecution adopted the foregoing testimonies of SPO1 Cecilio Lopez, Insp. Lucio Margallo and Renee Eric Checa, as part of its evidence-in-chief against Accused-Appellant. The aforestated prosecution witnesses were recalled by the defense for further cross-examination.
"In the service of her sentence, the accused is entitled to be credited with the full period of her preventive imprisonment.
"(b) In Criminal Case No. 93-115149, Accused CARMEN LACSON is hereby ACQUITTED, with cost de oficio.
"The Clerk of Court is hereby directed to release the P500,000.00 to the accused.
That the trial court erred in giving full credibility to the testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses who are police officers who conducted illegal search, illegal arrest and illegal detention including a two (2) year old child who has (sic) nothing to do with the alleged crime being imputed to the accused.
"That the trial court erred in rejecting the defense of the accused, corroborated by witnesses, with ill-motive by presenting her to the media where her photograph and video were taken and published and for political motive by presenting her before [the] Mayor of the City of Manila.
Accused-appellant also impugns certain alleged irregularities in their arrest, detention, interrogation and prosecution, claiming among others that the allegedly confiscated shabu was only turned over to the Criminal Investigation Laboratory Division (CILD) three (3) days after they were arrested, contrary to the testimony of Insp. Lucio Margallo that on January 8, 1993, he instructed his men to deliver the shabu to the CILD for examination but was returned for lack of chemicals. Accused-appellant also alleges that the police officers continually used her cellular phone from the time she was arrested until she was subsequently detained at the Western Police District headquarters.
First, as regards accused-appellant’s arrest, her application for bail 37 constitutes a waiver of her right to question whatever irregularities and defects attended her arrest. 38 As to the other alleged irregularities, assuming the existence of such irregularities, the proceedings in the trial court will not necessarily be struck down. No incriminatory evidence in the nature of a compelled or involuntary confession or admission was used as evidence against her. And more importantly, the guilt of accused-appellant was clearly established by the evidence adduced by the prosecution, particularly the testimonies of the arresting officers together with the documentary and object evidence which were formally offered and admitted in evidence in the lower court.
Bellosillo, Mendoza, Quisumbing and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
2.	Presided by Judge Benito C. Se, Jr.
3.	Records, p. 2. The information was amended on February 22, 1993 to accurately reveal the amount of methamphetamine hydrochloride which was confiscated by the arresting police officers. Records, p. 108.
5.	Ibid., pp. 194, 195.
6.	Ibid., pp. 45-46, 111 - 114. The first petition for bail was dated February 3, 1993; while the second petition for bail was dated March 5, 1993. The petitions were filed by two (2) different lawyers. Incidentally, before the second petition was filed, the cases were re-raffled from Branch 16 to Branch 45.
9.	Incidentally, in an Order dated September 3, 1993, the trial court granted the motion for medical treatment and hospitalization which was filed by Accused-Appellant.
10.	TSN, March 16, 1993, pp. 4-12.
11.	TSN, May 5, 1993,p. 11.
12.	TSN, May 5, 1993, p. 27.
13.	TSN, March 23, 1993, pp. 6-11.
14.	TSN, March 23,1993, p. 17.
15.	Accused-appellant’s grandchild was detained with accused-appellant until January 10, 1993.
16.	TSN, March 23, 1993, pp. 3-5.
17.	Exhibit M, Records, p. 20.
18.	Padzrati Tulawie was arrested together with accused-appellant on January 8, 1993. The shoe box containing methamphetamine hydrochloride was allegedly handed over by accused-appellant to Tulawie when their respective vehicles were running abreast with each other near the Nagtahan bridge.
19.	TSN, July 20, 1994, pp. 15-16.
20.	TSN, July 20, 1994, pp. 16-17.
21.	TSN, July 20, 1994, pp. 22-23.
22.	TSN, August 3, 1994, pp. 43-44.
23.	TSN, August 3, 1994, pp. 47-48.
24.	TSN, August 12, 1994, pp. 17-19.
25.	TSN, December 16, 1994, p. 8.
26.	TSN, December 16, 1994, pp. 12-13.
33.	People v. Lacatan, 295 SCRA 203, 210-211 (1998).
35.	People v. Balasa, 295 SCRA 49, 81 (1998).
36.	People v. Alfeche, 294 SCRA 352, 371 (1998).
37.	Accused-appellant filed three (3) separate petitions for bail in the course of the proceedings against her.
38.	People v. Timon, 281 SCRA 597 (1997).
41.	People v. Macario, 240 SCRA 531, 540 (1995).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.