This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-02-22 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Jurisprudence abounds with cases where deviation from the standard procedure in an anti-narcotics operation produces doubts as to the identity and origin of the drug which inevitably results to the acquittal of the accused. In People v. Mapa,[32] we acquitted the appellant after the prosecution failed to clarify whether the specimen submitted to the National Bureau of Investigation for laboratory examination was the same one allegedly taken from the appellant. Also in People v. Dimuske,[33] we ruled that the failure to prove that the specimen of marijuana examined by the forensic chemist was that seized from the accused was fatal to the prosecution's case. The same holds true in People v. Casimiro[34] and in Zarraga v. People[35] where the appellant was acquitted for failure of the prosecution to establish the identity of the prohibited drug which constitutes the corpus delicti. Recently in Catuiran v. People,[36] we acquitted the petitioner for failure of the prosecution witnesses to observe the standard procedure regarding the authentication of the evidence. | |||||
|
2010-01-22 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, considering the testimony of Ancheta, it was Balolong who forwarded the seized item. It is quite strange that Ancheta would point to Balolong as the sender of the seized items if he had no basis in saying so. However, our own scrutiny of the records failed to show the role of Balolong in the operation since admittedly, the only lawmen who participated therein were Mangapit and Pang-ag. In fact, as testified to by Mangapit, Balolong proceeded to the hotel after the operation.[30] How then was Balolong able to get hold of the confiscated substance when he was neither a party to nor present during the operation? Who entrusted the substance to him assuming that somebody requested him to submit it for safekeeping? These are only some of the lingering questions which must be answered convincingly and satisfactorily so as to ensure that there had been no substitution, contamination or tampering with the sachet of shabu allegedly taken from petitioner. It must be noted that Balolong was never presented to testify in this case. Thus, there is no evidence to prove that what was turned over to the evidence custodian by Balolong and later presented in court was the same substance recovered from petitioner. The failure to establish the chain of custody is fatal to the prosecution's case. There can be no crime of illegal possession of a prohibited drug when nagging doubts persist on whether the item confiscated was the same specimen examined and established to be the prohibited drug.[31] In People v. Casimiro,[32] citing People v. Mapa,[33] we acquitted the accused for failure of the prosecution to establish the identity of the prohibited drug which constitutes the corpus delicti. Equally true in Zarraga v. People,[34] we also acquitted the accused in view of the prosecution's failure to indubitably show the identity of the shabu. | |||||
|
2009-08-14 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Long before Congress passed RA 9165, this Court has consistently held that failure of the authorities to immediately mark the seized drugs raises reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti and suffices to rebut the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties,[11] the doctrinal fallback of every drug-related prosecution. Thus, in People v. Laxa[12] and People v. Casimiro,[13] we held that the failure to mark the drugs immediately after they were seized from the accused casts doubt on the prosecution evidence, warranting acquittal on reasonable doubt. These rulings are refinements of our holdings in People v. Mapa[14] and People v. Dismuke[15] that doubts on the authenticity of the drug specimen occasioned by the prosecution's failure to prove that the evidence submitted for chemical analysis is the same as the one seized from the accused suffice to warrant acquittal on reasonable doubt.[16] | |||||
|
2003-06-17 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| A. It was used in some other operation, sir. Q. You turned it over to your superior, is that what you are saying? A. To my team leader, sir. Q. Who was team leader? A. At that time it was SPO2 Fernando Fernandez. Q. So you don't know now where is the buy-bust money? A. Yes, sir. COURT: (To witness) Q: You are telling this court that you went to a lot of trouble of having the buy-bust money marked with fluorescent powder by the NBI and yet when it came to the actual transaction you did not use it? A. Because the suspect, sir, brought with him not the exact weight of the marijuana. (Emphasis ours.)[34] More importantly, the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the prohibited drug which constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense, an essential requirement in drug-related cases.[35] In People v. Mapa,[36] appellant was acquitted after the prosecution failed to clarify whether the specimen submitted to the NBI for laboratory examination was the same one allegedly taken from him. In People v. Dismuke,[37] we ruled that the failure to prove that the specimen of marijuana examined by the forensic chemist was that seized from the appellant was fatal to the prosecution's case. | |||||