This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-10-14 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In the prosecution of criminal cases involving drugs, it is firmly entrenched in our jurisprudence that the narcotic substance itself constitutes the corpus delicti, the body or substance of the crime, and the fact of its existence is a condition sine qua non to sustain a judgment of conviction. It is essential that the prosecution must prove with certitude that the narcotic substance confiscated from the suspect is the same drug offered in evidence before the court. As such, the presentation in court of the corpus delicti establishes the fact that a crime has actually been committed.[1] Failure to introduce the subject narcotic substance as an exhibit during trial is, therefore, fatal to the prosecution's cause. | |||||
|
2013-07-03 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Apart from the above, the prosecution carried the burden of establishing the chain of custody of the dangerous drugs that the police allegedly seized from the accused on the night of June 16, 2004. It should establish the following links in that chain of custody of the confiscated item: 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.[19] | |||||
|
2012-12-05 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Jurisprudence consistently pronounces that the dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction.[62] As such, the presentation in court of the corpus delicti the body or substance of the crime establishes the fact that a crime has actually been committed.[63] | |||||