This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2015-09-16 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Non-compliance with the procedure outlined in Section 21, Article II of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 shall not render void and invalid such seizure as long as the arresting officers successfully preserved the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items.[14] Here, while it is true that the police officers failed to make an inventory and take photographs, the prosecution was able to prove, however, that the sachet of shabu confiscated during the buy-bust operation was the same item presented and identified before the court. They were able to maintain the integrity of the seized drug and establish that the links in the chain of custody were not compromised. After seizure of the subject specimen, the authorities went to the police station where PO2 Panlilio immediately marked it with "MSP/LBT", which stands for his initials and that of Tampoy. He then turned it over to the police investigator, PO1 Darwin Pua.[15] Thereafter, PO1 Pua prepared the letter request for laboratory examination dated August 5, 2004. PO2 Ronald Adona then submitted the seized shabu to the crime laboratory, which was received by the Forensic Chemical Officer, Engineer Leonard M. Jabonillo. After examination, the submitted substance tested positive for Methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, as reflected in Chemistry Report No. D-732-2004.[16] | |||||
|
2015-08-03 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Flores argues that the arresting officers violated Section 21, Article II of the IRR of R.A. 9165 and the chain of custody rule. The rule on chain of custody expressly demands the identification of the persons who handle the confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring the authorized movements of the illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia from the time they are seized from the accused until the time they are presented in court. Moreover, as a method of authenticating evidence, 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 in 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 possession of the witness, 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 the same. Also, crucial in proving the chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related items immediately after they are seized from the accused.[14] It is settled that non-compliance with the procedure outlined in Section 21, Article II of the IRR of R.A. 9165 shall not render void and invalid such seizure as long as the apprehending officers are able to successfully preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items.[15] | |||||
|
2015-04-22 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The offense of illegal recruitment in large scale has the following elements: (1) the person charged undertook any recruitment activity as defined under Section 6 of RA 8042; (2) accused did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment of workers; and, (3) accused committed the same against three or more persons individually or as a group.[13] These elements are obtaining in this case. First, the RTC found appellants to have undertaken a recruitment activity when they promised private complainants employment in Japan for a fee. This factual finding was affirmed by the CA. "The time-tested doctrine is that the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge."[14] And when his findings have been affirmed by the Court of Appeals, these are generally binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court.[15] Second, the Certification issued by the POEA unmistakably reveals that appellants neither have a license nor authority to recruit workers for overseas employment. Notably, appellants never assailed this Certification. Third, it was established that there were five complainants. Clearly, the existence of the offense of illegal recruitment in large scale was duly proved by the prosecution. | |||||
|
2015-02-18 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| "Marking" initiates the process of protecting innocent persons from dubious and concocted searches, and of protecting as well the apprehending officers from harassment suits based on planting of evidence.[62] Marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team, [63] like what occurred in the present case. In the same vein, the fact that the markings used in the subject sachets were the initials of Dela Peña and Delima and not the initials of the arresting PDEA agent is not a ground to acquit the appellants. In the similar case of People v. Cardenas,[64] where the seized plastic sachets containing shabu were marked with the initials of accused-appellant, his conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs was nonetheless affirmed. Further, the defense cannot raise for the first time on appeal the question of whether the markings were made in the presence of Dela Peña and Delima. Lapses that affected the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drugs should be raised at the trial court level. [65] In any case, marking of the evidence, just like the security measures mandated under Section 21 of R.A. 9165, is aimed to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated illegal drugs will be preserved. With the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the six sachets seized from Dela Peña and Delima, as previously discussed, the lapses allegedly committed by the PDEA-7 operatives in the marking thereof, will not suffice to reverse their conviction. | |||||
|
2014-07-23 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In People v. Salonga,[47] we held that "it is essential for the prosecution to prove that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit. Its identity must be established with unwavering exactitude for it to lead to a finding of guilt."[48] That the substances which were sent to the crime laboratory and examined by the forensic chemical officer and found to be shabu were the very same substances which the police officers seized from appellant is proven by the following excerpts from the testimony of SPO4 Benedicto: [PROS. SANDOVAL] Mr[.] witness you said that aside from the one heat sealed transparent plastic sachet which accused Reyman Endaya y Laig sold to your poseur buyer in the evening of November 20, 2002 you also recovered eight (8) other sachets of shabu from him after his arrest if you will be shown these nine (9) plastic sachets of shabu can you identify the same? [SPO4 BENEDICTO] Yes sir. Q: Can you distinguish in [sic] these nine (9) plastic sachets which one was the subject matter of the buy bust operation and which of those was taken from the possession of the accused after his arrest? A: Yes sir Q: How would you distinguish these specimens from each other? A: My companion placed his markings on all the sachets sir. Q: How about the one (1) plastic sachet which your poseur buyer was able to buy from Reyman Endaya has it any distinguishing mark also after his arrest? A: There is a distinguishing mark sir. Q: What was the distinguishing mark? A: The sachet of shabu which was confiscated in [sic] the buy bust operation was marked by burning two ends of the plastic sachet, sir. Q: If you will be shown this [sic] specimen[s] can you identify them? A: Yes sir. Q: x x x will you please look at these specimens Mr. Witness and tell this Honorable Court what relation has the specimens to the eight (8) plastic sachets that were confiscated from accused Reyman Endaya after his arrest? A: These eight (8) sachets of shabu were confiscated when we searched him sir. x x x x Q: How about the plastic sachet which accused Reyman Endaya sold to your buyer in the buy bust operation? A: This sachet which was burned on both two (2) corners sir.[49] (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2014-06-09 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The CA was also correct in ruling that the failure of the arresting officers to strictly comply with paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165[22] mandating the procedure for the inventory and photograph of seized illegal drugs did not affect the evidentiary weight of the drugs seized from the accused-appellant. As held in People v. Cardenas:[23] | |||||
|
2013-12-11 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| In the recent People v. Cardenas,[56] we underscored the proviso by stressing that R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR do not require strict compliance with the chain of custody rule:The arrest of an accused will not be invalidated and the items seized from him rendered inadmissible on the sole ground of non-compliance with Sec. 21, Article II of RA 9165. We have emphasized that what is essential is "the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused." | |||||
|
2013-07-31 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| But time and again, jurisprudence is consistent in stating that less than strict compliance with the procedural aspect of the chain of custody rule does not necessarily render the seized drug items inadmissible.[39] | |||||