Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FRANCISCO IMSON Y ADRIANO v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 206738 2013-12-11	PEOPLE v. ERLINDA MALI Y QUIMNO REYES, J.
The failure to photograph the confiscated sachet of shabu is not fatal to the totality of the evidence for the prosecution. Such fact is immaterial to the legitimacy of the buy-bust operation for it is enough that it is established that the operation was indeed conducted and that the identity of the seller and drugs subject of the sale are proved.[58]
	GR No. 198318 2013-11-27	PEOPLE v. ASIR GANI Y ALIH LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Jurisprudence has decreed that, in dangerous drugs cases, the failure of the police officers to make a physical inventory and to photograph the sachets of shabu, as well as to mark the sachets at the place of arrest, do not render the seized drugs inadmissible in evidence or automatically impair the integrity of the chain of custody of the said drugs.[29] What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as these would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[30]
	GR No. 185383 2013-09-25	PEOPLE v. GIOVANNI OCFEMIA Y CHAVEZ LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Jurisprudence has already decreed that the failure of the police officers to make a physical inventory, to photograph, and to mark the shabu at the place of arrest do not automatically render it inadmissible in evidence or impair the integrity of the chain of its custody.[26] Of particular significance to the present case is the following discussion of the Court on Section 21(1) of Republic Act No. 9165 in People v. Resurreccion[27]:Jurisprudence tells us that the failure to immediately mark seized drugs will not automatically impair the integrity of chain of custody.
	GR No. 197250 2013-07-17	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO “ANDY” SOMOZA Y HANDAYA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
"Immediate confiscation" has no exact definition.[57] Indeed, marking upon immediate confiscation has been interpreted as to even include marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team.[58] In this case, the dangerous drugs taken from accused-appellant were marked in his presence immediately upon confiscation at the very venue of his arrest.
	GR No. 191391 2013-06-19	PEOPLE v. BENEDICT HOMAKY LUCIO PEREZ, J.
It has been ruled time and again that failure to strictly comply with Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165[84] does not necessarily render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as these would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[85]
	GR No. 180514 2013-04-17	PEOPLE v. DANTE L. DUMALAG LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It has already been settled that the failure of police officers to mark the items seized from an accused in illegal drugs cases immediately upon its confiscation at the place of arrest does not automatically impair the integrity of the chain of custody and render the confiscated items inadmissible in evidence.[41] In People v. Resurreccion,[42] the Court explained that "marking" of the seized items "immediately after seizure and confiscation" may be undertaken at the police station rather than at the place of arrest for as long as it is done in the presence of an accused in illegal drugs cases. It was further emphasized that what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as these would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. The Court elaborated in this wise: Jurisprudence tells us that the failure to immediately mark seized drugs will not automatically impair the integrity of chain of custody.
	GR No. 199938 2013-01-28	PEOPLE v. LABA Y CAMALOMNG SAMANODING PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
With respect to the chain of custody of the confiscated drugs, the Court likewise finds no reason to disturb the findings of the CA that the same had been faithfully observed by the arresting officers: from the time that the illegal substance was seized from appellant and properly marked by the arresting officers, to its laboratory examination until its presentation in open court for identification purposes.[38] Considering that the integrity of the seized substance, has been duly preserved, failure to strictly comply with Sec. 21, Par. (a)[39] of RA 9165 requiring the apprehending officers to physically inventory and photograph the confiscated items shall not render the evidence inadmissible.[40]
	GR No. 191062 2012-09-19	PEOPLE v. MOHAMAD ANGKOB Y MLANG PEREZ, J.
The first link in the chain of custody starts with the seizure of the plastic sachet containing shabu during the buy-bust operation. Records show that only Sistemio was in possession of the shabu from the time it was given to him by appellant, while they were in the Security Office of the mall where the accused were initially brought, while they were in transit, and up until they reached the PDEA Office. While the marking was not immediately made at the crime scene, it does not automatically impair the integrity of the chain of custody as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved.[28] The marking of the seized items at the police station and in the presence of the accused was sufficient compliance with the rules on chain of custody. Marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team.[29] In this case, Sistemio immediately marked the seized item upon reaching the PDEA Office. He marked it with his initials "PVS" and the date of the buy-bust sale.
	GR No. 185721 2011-09-28	PEOPLE v. RICKY UNISA Y ISLAN PEREZ, J.
In this case, the prosecution's failure to conduct the required photograph of the seized drugs in compliance with the provision of Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, will not work to the advantage of appellant. Non-compliance thereto is not fatal and will not render appellant's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible.[54] As can be observed, the implementing rules offer some flexibility when a proviso added that "non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items."[55] Thus, what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[56]