PEOPLE VS.

CHUA UY
[G.R. No. 128046. March 7, 2000.] The prosecution should present NBI Forensic Chemist. His
testimony cannot be waived since only he could say whether
the substance allegedly seized is indeed shabu, and also
FACTS: determine its actual weight upon which depends the penalty
 A female confidential informant personally informed to be imposed. Thus, whatever he said in his report is hearsay
the Anti-Narcotics Unit of the PNP Malabon City that and hearsay evidence, whether objected to or not, has no
Ramon Uy (alias Chekwa) asked her to look for a probative value.
buyer of shabu at a price of P1,000.00 per gram.
 Acting on the given information, the members of the ISSUES:
unit subsequently planned a buy-bust operation
against the accused. The confidential informant told 1. W/N an agreement, during pre-trial, to dispense
Uy that there is a prospective buyer (to be delivered with testimonies of the Forensic Chemist may be
considered an admission of findings of such chemist
in front of Justice Hall of Malabon City). One police
acted as poseur buyer. Then, they were able to on contents of seized plastic bag – NO
obtain shabu from him.
o Police yielded more shabu packets from his 2. W/N the Forensics Chemist should be presented as
attache case witness – NO
 When he was brought to the office for investigation,
it was learned that there was still an undetermined
HELD:
amount shabu that is left at his home.
o SPO4 Regalado applied on the following day Petition DENIED. Ramon Chua Uy is GUILTY.
for a search warrant to lawfully search the
said premises of the accused for shabu.  It may at once be noted that neither accused nor his
They were able to obtain shabu. counsel made express admission that the contents
 During pre-trial, the parties agreed on a joint trial of the plastic bags to “be marked” as Exhibits
and to dispense with the testimony of Forensic contain shabu.
Chemist Loreto F. Bravo. They also agreed on the o Based on the joint order, it is clear that
marking of the exhibits for the prosecution. accused and his counsel merely agreed to
the marking of the exhibits, and the clause
UY’S VERSION “thereby dispensing with the testimony of
 He just got home from tending to his garments forensic Chemist Bravo.”
business and was carrying a large amount of o Even granting for the sake of argument that
money, P132,000 to be exact from his Uy admitted during pre-trial order that the
collections for the sales of the day. packs contained shabu, it still CANNOT be
 He said that he saw a white Toyota car outside used as evidence against him because the
his residence, the same being offered to him for Joint Order was not signed.
sale. o When the prosecution formally offered in
 He allegedly refused but agreed to test-drive the evidence what it had marked in evidence
said car. It was then that he was allegedly during the pre-trial, Uy did not object to
stopped by the police and was ordered to give the admission of Bravo’s Preliminary
up his attaché case and forcible taken to the Report.
police station. It was there that he was accused
that said case contained the illegal substance.  The issue of non-presentation of evidence of
Forensic Chemist Bravo was never raised in the
TC DECISION: lower courts. This is for the first time, on appeal.
o Objection to evidence CANNOT be raised
The trial court gave credence to the prosecution’s for the first time on appeal; when a party
story of a legitimate buy bust operation and desires the court to reject the evidence
testimony of witnesses despite the non- offered, he must so state in the form of
presentation of the NBI Forensics Chemist who objection. Without such objection he
tested and confirmed that substance found in the cannot raise the question for the first time
accused possession is indeed shabu. The accused on appeal.
interposed the defense of frame-up and alleged that
the evidence was merely ‘planted.’ He is GUILTY of  The familiar rule in this jurisdiction is that the
illegal possession of shabu. inadmissibility of certain documents upon the
ground of hearsay if not urged before the court
UY’S CONTENTIONS:
 below CANNOT, for the first time, be raised on
appeal.
 Finally, as to the reports of Forensic Chemist Bravo,
it must be stressed that as an NBI Forensic Chemist,
Bravo is a public officer, and his report carries the
presumption of regularity in the performance of his
function and duty.

* BASICALLY – Just because the party agreed to dispense the