Lawyerly

GR No. 198450

2016-01-11

DEL CASTILLO, J.

The appellant contends that the belated submission of the pre-operation report to the PDEA after the buy-bust operation violates RA 9165; and that non-presentation of the unnamed "civilian informant" who allegedly brokered the transaction with him casts serious doubts on the factuality of the buy-bust operation.[15]

GR No. 205823

2015-08-17

PEOPLE v. REGIE BREIS Y ALVARADO

CARPIO, J.

The links that the prosecution must endeavor to establish with respect to the chain of custody are the following: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.[25]

GR No. 205202

2014-06-09

PEOPLE v. NENITA GAMATA Y VALDEZ

REYES, J.

Indeed, the following links in the chain of custody of the seized illegal drug were duly accounted for, to wit: (1) the seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court.[32]

GR No. 209785

2014-06-04

PEOPLE v. MARLON ABETONG Y ENDRADO

VELASCO JR., J.

The chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of it.[8]

GR No. 206738

2013-12-11

PEOPLE v. ERLINDA MALI Y QUIMNO

REYES, J.

In People v. Arriola,[61] we enumerated the different links that the prosecution must establish with respect to the chain of custody in a buy-bust operation, to wit: (1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court.[62]

GR No. 191730

2013-06-05

PEOPLE v. MYLENE TORRES Y CRUZ

PEREZ, J.

As a final note, appellant's bare denial cannot prevail over the positive identification by PO1 Rivera that she is the same person who sold the shabu to him. For the defense of denial to prosper, appellant must adduce clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that government officials have performed their duties in a regular and proper manner, which she failed to do. Furthermore, appellant failed to show any motive on the part of the buy-bust team to implicate her in a crime she claimed she did not commit. This Court has repeatedly held that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary suggesting ill-motive on the part of the police officers.[43] In this case there was none.

GR No. 192231

2013-02-13

PEOPLE v. JAMES GALIDO Y NOBLE

PEREZ, J.

As an incident to the arrest, Galido was ordered to empty his pockets which led to the confiscation of another plastic sachet containing illegal drugs. The defense presented no evidence to prove that the possession was authorized by law, the defense being non-possession or denial of possession. However, such denial cannot prevail over the positive identification made by the police officials.[15]

GR No. 190343

2013-02-06

PEOPLE v. SAIBEN LANGCUA Y DAIMLA

PEREZ, J.

Fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court.[48]

GR No. 177158

2013-02-06

PEOPLE v. LINDA ALVIZ y YATCO

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Jurisprudence has identified the elements that must be established for the successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, viz: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the same. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused. In other words, the commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, merely requires the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the moment the exchange of money and drugs between the buyer and the seller takes place.[17]

GR No. 188571

2012-10-10

PEOPLE v. MARICAR BRAINER Y MANGULABNAN

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

For the successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused. In other words, the commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, merely requires the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the moment the exchange of money and drugs between the buyer and the seller takes place.[28]

GR No. 200951

2012-09-05

PEOPLE v. JOSE ALMODIEL

CARPIO, J.

We find the claim unmeritorious. In the prosecution of drug cases, it is of paramount importance that the existence of the drug, the corpus delicti of the crime, be established beyond doubt.[33] It is precisely in this regard that RA 9165, particularly its Section 21,[34] prescribes the procedure to ensure the existence and identity of the drug seized from the accused and submitted to the court.

	GR No. 198450 2016-01-11	PEOPLE v. FERNANDO RANCHE HAVANA DEL CASTILLO, J.
The appellant contends that the belated submission of the pre-operation report to the PDEA after the buy-bust operation violates RA 9165; and that non-presentation of the unnamed "civilian informant" who allegedly brokered the transaction with him casts serious doubts on the factuality of the buy-bust operation.[15]
	GR No. 205823 2015-08-17	PEOPLE v. REGIE BREIS Y ALVARADO CARPIO, J.
The links that the prosecution must endeavor to establish with respect to the chain of custody are the following: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.[25]
	GR No. 205202 2014-06-09	PEOPLE v. NENITA GAMATA Y VALDEZ REYES, J.
Indeed, the following links in the chain of custody of the seized illegal drug were duly accounted for, to wit: (1) the seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court.[32]
	GR No. 209785 2014-06-04	PEOPLE v. MARLON ABETONG Y ENDRADO VELASCO JR., J.
The chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of it.[8]
	GR No. 206738 2013-12-11	PEOPLE v. ERLINDA MALI Y QUIMNO REYES, J.
In People v. Arriola,[61] we enumerated the different links that the prosecution must establish with respect to the chain of custody in a buy-bust operation, to wit: (1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court.[62]
	GR No. 191730 2013-06-05	PEOPLE v. MYLENE TORRES Y CRUZ PEREZ, J.
As a final note, appellant's bare denial cannot prevail over the positive identification by PO1 Rivera that she is the same person who sold the shabu to him. For the defense of denial to prosper, appellant must adduce clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that government officials have performed their duties in a regular and proper manner, which she failed to do. Furthermore, appellant failed to show any motive on the part of the buy-bust team to implicate her in a crime she claimed she did not commit. This Court has repeatedly held that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary suggesting ill-motive on the part of the police officers.[43] In this case there was none.
	GR No. 192231 2013-02-13	PEOPLE v. JAMES GALIDO Y NOBLE PEREZ, J.
As an incident to the arrest, Galido was ordered to empty his pockets which led to the confiscation of another plastic sachet containing illegal drugs. The defense presented no evidence to prove that the possession was authorized by law, the defense being non-possession or denial of possession. However, such denial cannot prevail over the positive identification made by the police officials.[15]
	GR No. 190343 2013-02-06	PEOPLE v. SAIBEN LANGCUA Y DAIMLA PEREZ, J.
Fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court.[48]
	GR No. 177158 2013-02-06	PEOPLE v. LINDA ALVIZ y YATCO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Jurisprudence has identified the elements that must be established for the successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, viz: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the same. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused. In other words, the commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, merely requires the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the moment the exchange of money and drugs between the buyer and the seller takes place.[17]
	GR No. 188571 2012-10-10	PEOPLE v. MARICAR BRAINER Y MANGULABNAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
For the successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused. In other words, the commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, merely requires the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the moment the exchange of money and drugs between the buyer and the seller takes place.[28]
	GR No. 200951 2012-09-05	PEOPLE v. JOSE ALMODIEL CARPIO, J.
We find the claim unmeritorious. In the prosecution of drug cases, it is of paramount importance that the existence of the drug, the corpus delicti of the crime, be established beyond doubt.[33] It is precisely in this regard that RA 9165, particularly its Section 21,[34] prescribes the procedure to ensure the existence and identity of the drug seized from the accused and submitted to the court.

PEOPLE v. FLORDELIZA ARRIOLA Y DE LARA