Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. JHON-JHON ALEJANDRO Y DELA CRUZ

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 189296 2015-03-11	PEOPLE v. RECTO ANGNGAO Y MAKAY BERSAMIN, J.
To ensure a conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements constituting the crime must be present, namely: (a) the identities of the buyer and seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the thing. Such prosecution for the sale of illegal drugs requires more than the hasty presentation of evidence to prove each element of the crime. The presentation of the drugs as evidence in court is indispensable in every prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs because the drugs are the corpus delicti of the crime.[11] As such, the State should establish beyond doubt the identity of the dangerous drugs by showing that the dangerous drugs offered in court as evidence were the same substances bought during the buy-bust operation.[12] This requirement is complied with by ensuring that the custody of the seized drugs from the time of confiscation until presentation in court is safeguarded under what is referred to as the chain of custody by Republic Act No. 9165, whose objective is to remove unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence.[13]
	GR No. 212196 2015-01-12	PEOPLE v. RAMIL DORIA DAHIL MENDOZA, J.
Crucial in proving the chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related items immediately after they have been seized from the accused. "Marking" means the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the items seized. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link; hence, it is vital that the seized contraband be immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings, thus, preventing switching, planting or contamination of evidence.[35]
	GR No. 188694 2014-02-12	RICARDO L. ATIENZA v. PEOPLE PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
The Constitution mandates that an accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The burden lies on the prosecution to overcome such presumption of innocence, failing which, the presumption of innocence prevails and the accused should be acquitted.[97] This, despite the fact that his innocence may be doubted, for a criminal conviction rests on the strength of the evidence of the prosecution and not on the weakness or even absence of defense. If the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction, as in this case. Courts should be guided by the principle that it would be better to set free ten men who might be probably guilty of the crime charged than to convict one innocent man for a crime he did not commit.[98] Accordingly, there being no circumstantial evidence sufficient to support a conviction, the Court hereby acquits petitioners, without prejudice, however, to any subsequent finding on their administrative liability in connection with the incidents in this case.
	GR No. 186137 2013-06-26	PEOPLE v. DATU NOT ABDUL SERENO, C.J.
The chain-of-custody rule is a method of authenticating evidence, by which the corpus delicti presented in court is shown to be one and the same as that which was retrieved from the accused or from the crime scene.[39] This rule, when applied to drug cases, requires a more stringent application, because the corpus delicti the narcotic substance - is not readily identifiable and must be subjected to scientific analysis to determine its composition and nature.[40] Malillin v. People[41] explains this rigorous standard when it comes to the chain of custody of narcotic substances:xxx 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 was 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 the same. (Emphasis supplied) Hence, every link in the chain of custody must not show any possibility of tampering, alteration or substitution.[42] However, it is accepted that a perfect chain is not the standard.[43] Nonetheless, two crucial links must be complied with. First, the seized illegal drug must be marked in the presence of the accused and immediately upon confiscation. This marking must be supported by details on how, when, and where the marking was done, as well as the witnesses to the marking. Second, the turnover of the seized drugs at every stage from confiscation from the accused, transportation to the police station, conveyance to the chemistry lab, and presentation to the court - must be shown and substantiated.[44]
	GR No. 188024 2013-06-05	RODRIGO RONTOS Y DELA TORRE v. PEOPLE SERENO, C.J.
Corpus delicti is the "actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged."[40] In illegal drug cases, it refers to the illegal drug item itself.[41] When courts are given reason to entertain reservations about the identity of the illegal drug item allegedly seized from the accused, the actual commission of the crime charged is put into serious question. In those cases, courts have no alternative but to acquit on the ground of reasonable doubt.
	GR No. 182417 2013-04-03	PEOPLE v. ALBERTO GONZALES Y SANTOS BERSAMIN, J.
The first stage in the chain of custody is the marking of the dangerous drugs or related items. Marking, which is the affixing on the dangerous drugs or related items by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his initials or signature or other identifying signs, should be made in the presence of the apprehended violator immediately upon arrest. The importance of the prompt marking cannot be denied, because succeeding handlers of the dangerous drugs or related items will use the marking as reference. Also, the marking operates to set apart as evidence the dangerous drugs or related items from other material from the moment they are confiscated until they are disposed of at the close of the criminal proceedings, thereby forestalling switching, planting, or contamination of evidence.[21] In short, the marking immediately upon confiscation or recovery of the dangerous drugs or related items is indispensable in the preservation of their integrity and evidentiary value.