Lawyerly

GR No. 200336

2015-02-11

PEREZ, J.

The last part of the aforequoted issuance provided the exception to the strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. Although ideally the prosecution should offer a perfect chain of custody in the handling of evidence, "substantial compliance with the legal requirements on the handling of the seized item" is sufficient.[29] This Court has consistently ruled that even if the arresting officers failed to strictly comply with the requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, such procedural lapse is not fatal and will not render the items seized inadmissible in evidence.[30] What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[31] In other words, to be admissible in evidence, the prosecution must be able to present through records or testimony, the whereabouts of the dangerous drugs from the time these were seized from the accused by the arresting officers; turned-over to the investigating officer; forwarded to the laboratory for determination of their composition; and up to the time these are offered in evidence. For as long as the chain of custody remains unbroken, as in this case, even though the procedural requirements provided for in Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was not faithfully observed, the guilt of the accused will not be affected.[32]

GR No. 207392

2014-07-02

PEOPLE v. RAMIE ORTEGA Y KALBI

PEREZ, J.

The last part of the aforequoted issuance provided the exception to the strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. Although ideally the prosecution should offer a perfect chain of custody in the handling of evidence, "substantial compliance with the legal requirements on the handling of the seized item" is sufficient.[13] This Court has consistently ruled that even if the arresting officers failed to strictly comply with the requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, such procedural lapse is not fatal and will not render the items seized inadmissible in evidence.[14] What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[15] In other words, to be admissible in evidence, the prosecution must be able to present through records or testimony, the whereabouts of the dangerous drugs from the time these were seized from the accused by the arresting officers; turned-over to the investigating officer; forwarded to the laboratory for determination of their composition; and up to the time these are offered in evidence. For as long as the chain of custody remains unbroken, as in this case, even though the procedural requirements provided for in Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was not faithfully observed, the guilt of the accused will not be affected.[16]

GR No. 193478

2014-06-23

PEOPLE v. RODOLFO P. FERNANDEZ

SERENO, C.J.

We have held that the failure of the prosecution to show compliance with the procedural requirements provided in Section 21 of Article II of R.A. 9165 and its IRR is not fatal.[42] What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as these would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[43] As long as the chain of custody remains unbroken, the guilt of the accused will not be affected.[44]

GR No. 200358

2014-04-07

PEOPLE v. GERRY YABLE Y USMAN

PEREZ, J.

Furthermore, this Court has consistently ruled that even in instances where the arresting officers failed to take a photograph of the seized drugs as required under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, such procedural lapse is not fatal and will not render the items seized inadmissible in evidence.[20] What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[21] In other words, to be admissible in evidence, the prosecution must be able to present through records or testimony, the whereabouts of the dangerous drugs from the time these were seized from the accused by the arresting officers; turned-over to the investigating officer; forwarded to the laboratory for determination of their composition; and up to the time these are offered in evidence. For as long as the chain of custody remains unbroken, as in this case, even though the procedural requirements provided for in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was not faithfully observed, the guilt of the accused will not be affected.[22]

GR No. 199219

2013-04-03

PEOPLE v. GERRY OCTAVIO Y FLORENDO

PEREZ, J.

Furthermore, this Court has consistently ruled that even if the arresting officers failed to take a photograph of the seized drugs as required under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, such procedural lapse is not fatal and will not render the items seized inadmissible in evidence.[17] What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[18] In other words, to be admissible in evidence, the prosecution must be able to present through records or testimony, the whereabouts of the dangerous drugs from the time these were seized from the accused by the arresting officers; turned-over to the investigating officer; forwarded to the laboratory for determination of their composition; and up to the time these are offered in evidence. For as long as the chain of custody remains unbroken, as in this case, even though the procedural requirements provided for in Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was not faithfully observed, the guilt of the accused will not be affected.[19]

GR No.191023

2013-02-06

DON DJOWEL SALES Y ABALAHIN v. PEOPLE

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

The rule on chain of custody under R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rules and regulations (IRR) expressly demands the identification of the persons who handle the confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring the authorized movements of the illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia from the time they are seized from the accused until the time they are presented in court.[24] We have held, however, that the failure of the prosecution to show compliance with the procedural requirements provided in Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR is not fatal and does not automatically render accused-appellant's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible.[25] What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[26] As long as the chain of custody remains unbroken, the guilt of the accused will not be affected.[27]

GR No. 200951

2012-09-05

PEOPLE v. JOSE ALMODIEL

CARPIO, J.

Thus, in the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute such a serious crime against the accused, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, shall prevail over the accused's self-serving and uncorroborated denial.[27]

GR No. 191532

2012-08-15

MARGARITA AMBRE Y CAYUNI v. PEOPLE

MENDOZA, J.

While ideally the procedure on the chain of custody should be perfect and unbroken, in reality, it is not as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.[20] This Court, however, has consistently held that the most important factor is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.[21] In this case, the prosecution was able to demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated drug paraphernalia had not been compromised. Hence, even though the prosecution failed to submit in evidence the physical inventory and photograph of the drug paraphernalia with traces of shabu, this will not render Ambre's arrest illegal or the items seized from her inadmissible.

GR No. 194721

2012-08-15

PEOPLE v. JOHN BRIAN AMARILLO Y MAPA

PEREZ, J.

The failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated pursuant to said guidelines, is not fatal and does not automatically render accused-appellant's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. xxx[25]

GR No. 185721

2011-09-28

PEOPLE v. RICKY UNISA Y ISLAN

PEREZ, J.

For a successful prosecution of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, the following elements must first be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[41] What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[42] Clearly, the commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, merely requires the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. As long as the police officer went through the operation as a buyer, whose offer was accepted by appellant, followed by the delivery of the dangerous drugs to the former, the crime is already consummated.[43] In this case, the prosecution has amply proven all the elements of the drugs sale beyond moral certainty.

	GR No. 200336 2015-02-11	PEOPLE v. ROWENA TAPUGAY Y VENTURA PEREZ, J.
The last part of the aforequoted issuance provided the exception to the strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. Although ideally the prosecution should offer a perfect chain of custody in the handling of evidence, "substantial compliance with the legal requirements on the handling of the seized item" is sufficient.[29] This Court has consistently ruled that even if the arresting officers failed to strictly comply with the requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, such procedural lapse is not fatal and will not render the items seized inadmissible in evidence.[30] What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[31] In other words, to be admissible in evidence, the prosecution must be able to present through records or testimony, the whereabouts of the dangerous drugs from the time these were seized from the accused by the arresting officers; turned-over to the investigating officer; forwarded to the laboratory for determination of their composition; and up to the time these are offered in evidence. For as long as the chain of custody remains unbroken, as in this case, even though the procedural requirements provided for in Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was not faithfully observed, the guilt of the accused will not be affected.[32]
	GR No. 207392 2014-07-02	PEOPLE v. RAMIE ORTEGA Y KALBI PEREZ, J.
The last part of the aforequoted issuance provided the exception to the strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. Although ideally the prosecution should offer a perfect chain of custody in the handling of evidence, "substantial compliance with the legal requirements on the handling of the seized item" is sufficient.[13] This Court has consistently ruled that even if the arresting officers failed to strictly comply with the requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, such procedural lapse is not fatal and will not render the items seized inadmissible in evidence.[14] What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[15] In other words, to be admissible in evidence, the prosecution must be able to present through records or testimony, the whereabouts of the dangerous drugs from the time these were seized from the accused by the arresting officers; turned-over to the investigating officer; forwarded to the laboratory for determination of their composition; and up to the time these are offered in evidence. For as long as the chain of custody remains unbroken, as in this case, even though the procedural requirements provided for in Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was not faithfully observed, the guilt of the accused will not be affected.[16]
	GR No. 193478 2014-06-23	PEOPLE v. RODOLFO P. FERNANDEZ SERENO, C.J.
We have held that the failure of the prosecution to show compliance with the procedural requirements provided in Section 21 of Article II of R.A. 9165 and its IRR is not fatal.[42] What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as these would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[43] As long as the chain of custody remains unbroken, the guilt of the accused will not be affected.[44]
	GR No. 200358 2014-04-07	PEOPLE v. GERRY YABLE Y USMAN PEREZ, J.
Furthermore, this Court has consistently ruled that even in instances where the arresting officers failed to take a photograph of the seized drugs as required under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, such procedural lapse is not fatal and will not render the items seized inadmissible in evidence.[20] What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[21] In other words, to be admissible in evidence, the prosecution must be able to present through records or testimony, the whereabouts of the dangerous drugs from the time these were seized from the accused by the arresting officers; turned-over to the investigating officer; forwarded to the laboratory for determination of their composition; and up to the time these are offered in evidence. For as long as the chain of custody remains unbroken, as in this case, even though the procedural requirements provided for in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was not faithfully observed, the guilt of the accused will not be affected.[22]
	GR No. 199219 2013-04-03	PEOPLE v. GERRY OCTAVIO Y FLORENDO PEREZ, J.
Furthermore, this Court has consistently ruled that even if the arresting officers failed to take a photograph of the seized drugs as required under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, such procedural lapse is not fatal and will not render the items seized inadmissible in evidence.[17] What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[18] In other words, to be admissible in evidence, the prosecution must be able to present through records or testimony, the whereabouts of the dangerous drugs from the time these were seized from the accused by the arresting officers; turned-over to the investigating officer; forwarded to the laboratory for determination of their composition; and up to the time these are offered in evidence. For as long as the chain of custody remains unbroken, as in this case, even though the procedural requirements provided for in Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was not faithfully observed, the guilt of the accused will not be affected.[19]
	GR No.191023 2013-02-06	DON DJOWEL SALES Y ABALAHIN v. PEOPLE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The rule on chain of custody under R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rules and regulations (IRR) expressly demands the identification of the persons who handle the confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring the authorized movements of the illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia from the time they are seized from the accused until the time they are presented in court.[24] We have held, however, that the failure of the prosecution to show compliance with the procedural requirements provided in Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR is not fatal and does not automatically render accused-appellant's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible.[25] What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[26] As long as the chain of custody remains unbroken, the guilt of the accused will not be affected.[27]
	GR No. 200951 2012-09-05	PEOPLE v. JOSE ALMODIEL CARPIO, J.
Thus, in the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute such a serious crime against the accused, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, shall prevail over the accused's self-serving and uncorroborated denial.[27]
	GR No. 191532 2012-08-15	MARGARITA AMBRE Y CAYUNI v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
While ideally the procedure on the chain of custody should be perfect and unbroken, in reality, it is not as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.[20] This Court, however, has consistently held that the most important factor is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.[21] In this case, the prosecution was able to demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated drug paraphernalia had not been compromised. Hence, even though the prosecution failed to submit in evidence the physical inventory and photograph of the drug paraphernalia with traces of shabu, this will not render Ambre's arrest illegal or the items seized from her inadmissible.
	GR No. 194721 2012-08-15	PEOPLE v. JOHN BRIAN AMARILLO Y MAPA PEREZ, J.
The failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated pursuant to said guidelines, is not fatal and does not automatically render accused-appellant's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. xxx[25]
	GR No. 185721 2011-09-28	PEOPLE v. RICKY UNISA Y ISLAN PEREZ, J.
For a successful prosecution of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, the following elements must first be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[41] What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[42] Clearly, the commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, merely requires the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. As long as the police officer went through the operation as a buyer, whose offer was accepted by appellant, followed by the delivery of the dangerous drugs to the former, the crime is already consummated.[43] In this case, the prosecution has amply proven all the elements of the drugs sale beyond moral certainty.

PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO MANLANGIT Y TRESBALLES