Lawyerly

GR No. 201146

2015-04-15

PERALTA, J.

For a successful prosecution of illegal sale of regulated or prohibited drugs, all of the following elements must be satisfied: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and its payment.[14] What matters is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug, the corpus delicti, as evidence.[15]

GR No. 189272

2015-01-21

PEOPLE v. CHI CHAN LIU

PERALTA, J.

This Court has consistently noted that denial or frame up is a standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Law. This defense has been invariably viewed with disfavor for it can easily be concocted. In order to prosper, the defense of denial and frame-up must be proved with strong and convincing evidence.[42] Without proof of any intent on the part of the police officers to falsely impute to appellants the commission of a crime, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the principle that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect, deserve to prevail over the bare denials and self-serving claims of frame up by appellants.[43]

GR No. 202687

2015-01-14

PEOPLE v. JERIC PAVIA Y PALIZA

PEREZ, J.

Indeed, the defenses of denial and frame-up have been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. In order to prosper, the defenses of denial and frame-up must be proved with strong and convincing evidence. In the case before us, appellants failed to present sufficient evidence in support of their claims. Aside from their self-serving assertions, no plausible proof was presented to bolster their allegations.[20] Consequently, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence that the police officers were inspired by any improper motive, this Court will not appreciate the defense of denial or frame-up and instead apply the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by law enforcement agents.[21]

GR No. 190623

2014-11-17

PEOPLE v. ROMMEL ARAZA Y SAGUN

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Araza's contention that the investigating officer who received the seized drug in the police station and the person who delivered the same to the crime laboratory should have been presented to establish an unbroken chain of custody fails to impress. It is not necessary to present all persons who came into contact with the seized drug to testify in court.[30] "As long as the chain of custody of the seized drug was clearly established to have not been broken and the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized, it is not indispensable that each and every person who came into possession of the drugs should take the witness stand."[31] The non-presentation as witnesses of the evidence custodian and the officer on duty is not a crucial point against the prosecution since it has the discretion as to how to present its case and the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses.[32]

GR No. 203984

2014-06-18

PEOPLE v. MEDARIO CALANTIAO Y DIMALANTA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Furthermore, unless it can be shown that there was bad faith, ill will, or tampering of the evidence, the presumption that the integrity of the evidence has been preserved will remain. The burden of showing the foregoing to overcome the presumption that the police officers handled the seized drugs with regularity, and that they properly discharged their duties is on Calantiao. Unfortunately, Calantiao failed to discharge such burden.[22]

GR No. 205227

2014-04-07

PEOPLE v. MARCO P. ALEJANDRO

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

The non-presentation as witnesses of other persons such as the investigator and the receiving clerk of the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory is not a crucial point against the prosecution. The matter of presentation of witnesses by the prosecution is not for the court to decide. The prosecution has the discretion as to how to present its case and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses.[35] Further, there is nothing in R.A. No. 9165 or in its implementing rules, which requires each and every one who came into contact with the seized drugs to testify in court. "As long as the chain of custody of the seized drug was clearly established to have not been broken and the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized, it is not indispensable that each and every person who came into possession of the drugs should take the witness stand."[36]

GR No. 197250

2013-07-17

PEOPLE v. REYNALDO “ANDY” SOMOZA Y HANDAYA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

In both cases of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must show the chain of custody over the dangerous drug in order to establish the corpus delicti, which is the dangerous drug itself.[40] Such chain of custody should show that the dangerous drug sold by or in the possession of the accused is the same dangerous drug seized from the said accused and taken into custody by the apprehending officer, marked and subjected to physical inventory by the apprehending officer, submitted to the PDEA or PNP forensic laboratory, subjected by the forensic laboratory examiner to laboratory examination the results of which are contained in a sworn certification, and presented to the court as evidence against the accused.[41] This is to ensure the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items and preclude the possibility of alteration, tampering or substitution of substance in the chain of custody of the dangerous drug. Nevertheless, a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, because the same will be utilized in ascertaining the guilt or innocence of the accused.[42]

GR No. 180514

2013-04-17

PEOPLE v. DANTE L. DUMALAG

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

As for the non-presentation by the prosecution of the informant, this point need not be belabored. The Court has time and again held that "the presentation of an informant in an illegal drugs case is not essential for the conviction nor is it indispensable for a successful prosecution because his testimony would be merely corroborative and cumulative."[37] The informant's testimony is not needed if the sale of the illegal drug has been adequately proven by the prosecution.[38]

GR No.191023

2013-02-06

DON DJOWEL SALES Y ABALAHIN v. PEOPLE

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

We find no merit in petitioner's argument that the non-presentation of SPO2 Olandesca and PO2 Hojilla as witnesses is fatal to the prosecution's case. As this Court held in People v. Amansec[32]: x x x there is nothing in Republic Act No. 9165 or in its implementing rules, which requires each and everyone who came into contact with the seized drugs to testify in court. "As long as the chain of custody of the seized drug was clearly established to have not been broken and the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized, it is not indispensable that each and every person who came into possession of the drugs should take the witness stand." This Court, in People v. Hernandez,[33] citing People v. Zeng Hua Dian,[34] ruled:

GR No. 198794

2013-02-06

PEOPLE v. VICTOR DE JESUS Y GARCIA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

It was held, however, that "a testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain."[27] The arresting officers' failure to conduct a physical inventory and to photograph the items seized from De Jesus will not render his arrest illegal or the items confiscated from him inadmissible in evidence as they were able to nonetheless preserve the integrity and the evidentiary value of the said items. This is what is of utmost importance as the seized items are what would be used in the determination of De Jesus' guilt or innocence.[28]

GR No. 188107

2012-12-05

PEOPLE v. RONALD M. DEL ROSARIO

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

In a prosecution for the sale of a dangerous drug, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[29] Simply put, "[in] prosecutions for illegal sale of shabu, what is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence."[30]

GR No. 189327

2012-02-29

PEOPLE v. EMILY MENDOZA Y SARTIN

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

A review of the records would show that Ching, the poseur-buyer, made a positive identification of Mendoza as the one who sold him the plastic sachet with white crystalline substance and to whom he gave the buy-bust money to during the entrapment operations. This was seconded by Mangilit, who also positively identified Mendoza as the subject of their buy-bust operation on May 12, 2003. Mendoza's weak defenses of denial and frame-up cannot prevail over such positive identification.[41]

	GR No. 201146 2015-04-15	PEOPLE v. MICHAEL ROS Y ORTEGA PERALTA, J.
For a successful prosecution of illegal sale of regulated or prohibited drugs, all of the following elements must be satisfied: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and its payment.[14] What matters is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug, the corpus delicti, as evidence.[15]
	GR No. 189272 2015-01-21	PEOPLE v. CHI CHAN LIU PERALTA, J.
This Court has consistently noted that denial or frame up is a standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Law. This defense has been invariably viewed with disfavor for it can easily be concocted. In order to prosper, the defense of denial and frame-up must be proved with strong and convincing evidence.[42] Without proof of any intent on the part of the police officers to falsely impute to appellants the commission of a crime, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the principle that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect, deserve to prevail over the bare denials and self-serving claims of frame up by appellants.[43]
	GR No. 202687 2015-01-14	PEOPLE v. JERIC PAVIA Y PALIZA PEREZ, J.
Indeed, the defenses of denial and frame-up have been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. In order to prosper, the defenses of denial and frame-up must be proved with strong and convincing evidence. In the case before us, appellants failed to present sufficient evidence in support of their claims. Aside from their self-serving assertions, no plausible proof was presented to bolster their allegations.[20] Consequently, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence that the police officers were inspired by any improper motive, this Court will not appreciate the defense of denial or frame-up and instead apply the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by law enforcement agents.[21]
	GR No. 190623 2014-11-17	PEOPLE v. ROMMEL ARAZA Y SAGUN DEL CASTILLO, J.
Araza's contention that the investigating officer who received the seized drug in the police station and the person who delivered the same to the crime laboratory should have been presented to establish an unbroken chain of custody fails to impress. It is not necessary to present all persons who came into contact with the seized drug to testify in court.[30] "As long as the chain of custody of the seized drug was clearly established to have not been broken and the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized, it is not indispensable that each and every person who came into possession of the drugs should take the witness stand."[31] The non-presentation as witnesses of the evidence custodian and the officer on duty is not a crucial point against the prosecution since it has the discretion as to how to present its case and the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses.[32]
	GR No. 203984 2014-06-18	PEOPLE v. MEDARIO CALANTIAO Y DIMALANTA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Furthermore, unless it can be shown that there was bad faith, ill will, or tampering of the evidence, the presumption that the integrity of the evidence has been preserved will remain. The burden of showing the foregoing to overcome the presumption that the police officers handled the seized drugs with regularity, and that they properly discharged their duties is on Calantiao. Unfortunately, Calantiao failed to discharge such burden.[22]
	GR No. 205227 2014-04-07	PEOPLE v. MARCO P. ALEJANDRO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The non-presentation as witnesses of other persons such as the investigator and the receiving clerk of the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory is not a crucial point against the prosecution. The matter of presentation of witnesses by the prosecution is not for the court to decide. The prosecution has the discretion as to how to present its case and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses.[35] Further, there is nothing in R.A. No. 9165 or in its implementing rules, which requires each and every one who came into contact with the seized drugs to testify in court. "As long as the chain of custody of the seized drug was clearly established to have not been broken and the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized, it is not indispensable that each and every person who came into possession of the drugs should take the witness stand."[36]
	GR No. 197250 2013-07-17	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO “ANDY” SOMOZA Y HANDAYA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In both cases of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must show the chain of custody over the dangerous drug in order to establish the corpus delicti, which is the dangerous drug itself.[40] Such chain of custody should show that the dangerous drug sold by or in the possession of the accused is the same dangerous drug seized from the said accused and taken into custody by the apprehending officer, marked and subjected to physical inventory by the apprehending officer, submitted to the PDEA or PNP forensic laboratory, subjected by the forensic laboratory examiner to laboratory examination the results of which are contained in a sworn certification, and presented to the court as evidence against the accused.[41] This is to ensure the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items and preclude the possibility of alteration, tampering or substitution of substance in the chain of custody of the dangerous drug. Nevertheless, a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, because the same will be utilized in ascertaining the guilt or innocence of the accused.[42]
	GR No. 180514 2013-04-17	PEOPLE v. DANTE L. DUMALAG LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
As for the non-presentation by the prosecution of the informant, this point need not be belabored. The Court has time and again held that "the presentation of an informant in an illegal drugs case is not essential for the conviction nor is it indispensable for a successful prosecution because his testimony would be merely corroborative and cumulative."[37] The informant's testimony is not needed if the sale of the illegal drug has been adequately proven by the prosecution.[38]
	GR No.191023 2013-02-06	DON DJOWEL SALES Y ABALAHIN v. PEOPLE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
We find no merit in petitioner's argument that the non-presentation of SPO2 Olandesca and PO2 Hojilla as witnesses is fatal to the prosecution's case. As this Court held in People v. Amansec[32]: x x x there is nothing in Republic Act No. 9165 or in its implementing rules, which requires each and everyone who came into contact with the seized drugs to testify in court. "As long as the chain of custody of the seized drug was clearly established to have not been broken and the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized, it is not indispensable that each and every person who came into possession of the drugs should take the witness stand." This Court, in People v. Hernandez,[33] citing People v. Zeng Hua Dian,[34] ruled:
	GR No. 198794 2013-02-06	PEOPLE v. VICTOR DE JESUS Y GARCIA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It was held, however, that "a testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain."[27] The arresting officers' failure to conduct a physical inventory and to photograph the items seized from De Jesus will not render his arrest illegal or the items confiscated from him inadmissible in evidence as they were able to nonetheless preserve the integrity and the evidentiary value of the said items. This is what is of utmost importance as the seized items are what would be used in the determination of De Jesus' guilt or innocence.[28]
	GR No. 188107 2012-12-05	PEOPLE v. RONALD M. DEL ROSARIO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In a prosecution for the sale of a dangerous drug, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[29] Simply put, "[in] prosecutions for illegal sale of shabu, what is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence."[30]
	GR No. 189327 2012-02-29	PEOPLE v. EMILY MENDOZA Y SARTIN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
A review of the records would show that Ching, the poseur-buyer, made a positive identification of Mendoza as the one who sold him the plastic sachet with white crystalline substance and to whom he gave the buy-bust money to during the entrapment operations. This was seconded by Mangilit, who also positively identified Mendoza as the subject of their buy-bust operation on May 12, 2003. Mendoza's weak defenses of denial and frame-up cannot prevail over such positive identification.[41]

PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN AMANSEC Y DOÑA