Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. JAIME GATLABAYAN Y BATARA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 205144 2014-11-26	MARGIE BALERTA v. PEOPLE REYES, J.
The RTC and the CA faulted the petitioner for not offering countervailing evidence, including an audit conducted in her own behalf. Still, it does not justify a conviction to be handed on that ground because the "[c]ourts cannot magnify the weakness of the defense and overlook the prosecution's failure to discharge the onus probandi."[56]
	GR No. 200877 2014-11-12	PEOPLE v. CHARVE JOHN LAGAHIT PEREZ, J.
In People v. Gatlabayan[24] citing People v. Kamad,[25] this Court enumerated the links that the prosecution must establish in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation to be as follows: 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 by the forensic chemist to the court.
	GR No. 198314 2014-09-24	PEOPLE v. RICHARD GUINTO Y SAN ANDRES PEREZ, J.
In illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration of the sale and the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[23] Hence, to establish a concrete case, it is an utmost importance to prove the identity of the narcotic substance itself as it constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction. It is therefore imperative for the prosecution to first establish beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the dangerous drug before asserting other arguments.[24]
	GR No. 207992 2014-08-11	PEOPLE v. ROBERTO HOLGADO Y DELA CRUZ LEONEN, J.
In People v. Gatlabayan[45] and People v. Sitco,[46] this court considered as fatal to the prosecution's case the lack of evidence on the identity of the person who submitted the specimen for examination to the PNP Crime Laboratory and/or the forensic chemist. In Sitco, this court characterized the lack of evidence on this matter as "glaring gaps or missing links in the chain of custody of evidence, raising doubt as to the identity of the seized items and necessarily their evidentiary value."[47] This court also underscored that "[t]his broken chain of custody is especially significant given that what are involved are fungible items that may be easily altered or tampered with."[48]
	GR No. 195528 2013-07-04	PEOPLE v. JOSE CLARA Y BUHAIN PEREZ, J.
In case of conflict between the presumption of regularity of police officers and the presumption of innocence of the accused, we rule that the latter must prevail as the law imposes upon the prosecution the highest degree of proof of evidence to sustain conviction.[79]