Lawyerly

GR No. 215714

2015-08-12

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

In sum, we find no reversible error committed by the RTC and CA in convicting appellant of illegal sale of drugs. It is settled that the factual findings of the CA affirming those of the trial court are binding on this Court unless there is a clear showing that such findings are tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness or palpable error.[37] This case is no exception to the rule. All told, this Court thus sustains the conviction of the appellant for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.

GR No. 209338

2015-06-29

PEOPLE v. BIENVENIDO MIRANDA Y FELICIANO

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

In sum, we find no reversible error committed by the RTC and CA in convicting appellant of illegal sale and possession of drugs as to warrant the modification much less the reversal thereof. It is hornbook doctrine that the factual findings of the CA affirming those of the trial court are binding on this Court unless there is a clear showing that such findings are tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness or palpable error.[44] This case is no exception to the rule. All told, this Court thus sustains the RTC’s conviction of the appellant for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, as affirmed by the CA.

GR No. 202837

2015-01-21

PEOPLE v. RAKIM MINANGA Y DUMANSAL

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

In sum, we find no reversible error committed by the RTC and CA in convicting appellant of illegal possession of drugs as to warrant the modification much less the reversal thereof. It is hornbook doctrine that the factual findings of the CA affirming those of the trial court are binding on this Court unless there is a clear showing that such findings are tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness or palpable error.[36] This case is no exception to the rule. All told, this Court thus sustains the conviction of the appellant for violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.

GR No. 194499

2015-01-14

MANUEL R. PORTUGUEZ v. PEOPLE

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

In sum, we find no reversible error committed by the RTC and CA in convicting petitioner of illegal possession of drugs. It is hornbook doctrine that the factual findings of the CA affirming those of the trial court are binding on this Court unless there is a clear showing that such findings are tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness or palpable error.[40] This case is no exception to the rule. All told, this Court thus sustains the conviction of petitioner for violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.

GR No. 206912

2014-09-10

PEOPLE v. DEMOSTHENES BONTUYAN

PEREZ, J.

Admittedly, a testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items.[27] Here, there was substantial compliance with the law and the integrity of the seized items from accused-appellant was preserved.

GR No. 198318

2013-11-27

PEOPLE v. ASIR GANI Y ALIH

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

In the prosecution for the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the following elements must concur: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof. What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually occurred, coupled with the presentation in court of the substance seized as evidence.[27]

GR No. 185383

2013-09-25

PEOPLE v. GIOVANNI OCFEMIA Y CHAVEZ

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

In the prosecution for the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the following elements must concur: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof. What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually occurred, coupled with the presentation in court of the substance seized as evidence.[25]

GR No. 188310

2013-06-13

PEOPLE v. MERCIDITA T. RESURRECCION

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

In the prosecution for the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the following elements must concur: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof. What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually occurred, coupled with the presentation in court of the substance seized as evidence.[24]

GR No. 191396

2013-04-17

PEOPLE v. MARILYN AGUILAR Y MANZANILLO

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

While a testimony about a perfect and unbroken chain is ideal, such is not always the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.[22] A perusal of the law reveals, however, that failure to strictly comply with the procedure in Section 21 will not render the arrest illegal or the items seized inadmissible in evidence, provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of such items are preserved since they will be used in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[23]

GR No. 180514

2013-04-17

PEOPLE v. DANTE L. DUMALAG

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

In the prosecution for the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the following elements must concur: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof. What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually occurred, coupled with the presentation in court of the substance seized as evidence.[36]

GR No. 187496

2013-02-06

PEOPLE v. MALIK MANALAO Y ALAUYA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Besides, unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered or meddled with, the presumptions that the integrity of such evidence had been preserved and that the police officers who handled the seized drugs had discharged their duties properly and with regularity remain.[32] The burden to overcome such presumptions lies on Manalao, and this Court finds that he failed to do so.

GR No. 187736

2012-02-08

PEOPLE v. FLORDELIZA ARRIOLA Y DE LARA

MENDOZA, J.

So, in this case, Arriola has the burden to show that the evidence was tampered or meddled with to overcome a presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers, as well as a presumption that said public officers properly discharged their duties.[26] Resultantly, since she failed to discharge such burden, it cannot be disputed that the drugs seized from her were the same ones examined in the crime laboratory. The prosecution, therefore, established the crucial link in the chain of custody of the seized drugs.[27]

GR No. 195005

2011-09-12

ROSANA ASIATICO Y STA. MARIA v. PEOPLE

VELASCO JR., J.

Admittedly, a testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.[18] What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items.[19] Here, there was substantial compliance with the law and the integrity of the drugs seized from Rosana was preserved.

	GR No. 215714 2015-08-12	OF PHILIPPINES v. EFREN BASAL CAYAS VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In sum, we find no reversible error committed by the RTC and CA in convicting appellant of illegal sale of drugs. It is settled that the factual findings of the CA affirming those of the trial court are binding on this Court unless there is a clear showing that such findings are tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness or palpable error.[37] This case is no exception to the rule. All told, this Court thus sustains the conviction of the appellant for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
	GR No. 209338 2015-06-29	PEOPLE v. BIENVENIDO MIRANDA Y FELICIANO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In sum, we find no reversible error committed by the RTC and CA in convicting appellant of illegal sale and possession of drugs as to warrant the modification much less the reversal thereof. It is hornbook doctrine that the factual findings of the CA affirming those of the trial court are binding on this Court unless there is a clear showing that such findings are tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness or palpable error.[44] This case is no exception to the rule. All told, this Court thus sustains the RTC’s conviction of the appellant for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, as affirmed by the CA.
	GR No. 202837 2015-01-21	PEOPLE v. RAKIM MINANGA Y DUMANSAL VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In sum, we find no reversible error committed by the RTC and CA in convicting appellant of illegal possession of drugs as to warrant the modification much less the reversal thereof. It is hornbook doctrine that the factual findings of the CA affirming those of the trial court are binding on this Court unless there is a clear showing that such findings are tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness or palpable error.[36] This case is no exception to the rule. All told, this Court thus sustains the conviction of the appellant for violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
	GR No. 194499 2015-01-14	MANUEL R. PORTUGUEZ v. PEOPLE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In sum, we find no reversible error committed by the RTC and CA in convicting petitioner of illegal possession of drugs. It is hornbook doctrine that the factual findings of the CA affirming those of the trial court are binding on this Court unless there is a clear showing that such findings are tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness or palpable error.[40] This case is no exception to the rule. All told, this Court thus sustains the conviction of petitioner for violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
	GR No. 206912 2014-09-10	PEOPLE v. DEMOSTHENES BONTUYAN PEREZ, J.
Admittedly, a testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items.[27] Here, there was substantial compliance with the law and the integrity of the seized items from accused-appellant was preserved.
	GR No. 198318 2013-11-27	PEOPLE v. ASIR GANI Y ALIH LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In the prosecution for the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the following elements must concur: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof. What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually occurred, coupled with the presentation in court of the substance seized as evidence.[27]
	GR No. 185383 2013-09-25	PEOPLE v. GIOVANNI OCFEMIA Y CHAVEZ LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In the prosecution for the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the following elements must concur: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof. What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually occurred, coupled with the presentation in court of the substance seized as evidence.[25]
	GR No. 188310 2013-06-13	PEOPLE v. MERCIDITA T. RESURRECCION LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In the prosecution for the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the following elements must concur: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof. What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually occurred, coupled with the presentation in court of the substance seized as evidence.[24]
	GR No. 191396 2013-04-17	PEOPLE v. MARILYN AGUILAR Y MANZANILLO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
While a testimony about a perfect and unbroken chain is ideal, such is not always the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.[22] A perusal of the law reveals, however, that failure to strictly comply with the procedure in Section 21 will not render the arrest illegal or the items seized inadmissible in evidence, provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of such items are preserved since they will be used in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[23]
	GR No. 180514 2013-04-17	PEOPLE v. DANTE L. DUMALAG LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In the prosecution for the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the following elements must concur: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof. What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually occurred, coupled with the presentation in court of the substance seized as evidence.[36]
	GR No. 187496 2013-02-06	PEOPLE v. MALIK MANALAO Y ALAUYA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Besides, unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered or meddled with, the presumptions that the integrity of such evidence had been preserved and that the police officers who handled the seized drugs had discharged their duties properly and with regularity remain.[32] The burden to overcome such presumptions lies on Manalao, and this Court finds that he failed to do so.
	GR No. 187736 2012-02-08	PEOPLE v. FLORDELIZA ARRIOLA Y DE LARA MENDOZA, J.
So, in this case, Arriola has the burden to show that the evidence was tampered or meddled with to overcome a presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers, as well as a presumption that said public officers properly discharged their duties.[26] Resultantly, since she failed to discharge such burden, it cannot be disputed that the drugs seized from her were the same ones examined in the crime laboratory. The prosecution, therefore, established the crucial link in the chain of custody of the seized drugs.[27]
	GR No. 195005 2011-09-12	ROSANA ASIATICO Y STA. MARIA v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
Admittedly, a testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.[18] What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items.[19] Here, there was substantial compliance with the law and the integrity of the drugs seized from Rosana was preserved.

PEOPLE v. ARNOLD CASTRO Y YANGA