Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. JACQUILINE PAMBID Y CORTEZ

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 215714 2015-08-12	OF PHILIPPINES v. EFREN BASAL CAYAS VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The law itself lays down the exceptions to its requirements. Thus, non-compliance with the above-mentioned requirements is not fatal. In fact it has been ruled time and again that non-compliance with Section 21 of the IRR does not make the items seized inadmissible. What is imperative is “the preservation of the integrity and the evidential value of the seized items as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.”[34]
	GR No. 202837 2015-01-21	PEOPLE v. RAKIM MINANGA Y DUMANSAL VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Evidently, the law itself lays down exceptions to its requirements. Thus, non-compliance with the above-mentioned requirements is not fatal. In fact it has been ruled time and again that non-compliance with Section 21 of the IRR does not make the items seized inadmissible. What is imperative is "the preservation of the integrity and the evidential value of the seized items as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused."[33]
	GR No. 194499 2015-01-14	MANUEL R. PORTUGUEZ v. PEOPLE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Based on the foregoing, this Court has held that non-compliance with the above-mentioned requirements is not fatal. Non-compliance with Section 21 of the IRR does not make the items seized inadmissible. What is imperative is "the preservation of the integrity and the evidential value of the seized items as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused."[36]
	GR No. 189176 2014-03-19	BARRY LANIER v. PEOPLE PEREZ, J.
The presence of these elements was attested to by evidence such as the Joint Affidavit of Arrest and the Receipt of the Properties seized. The police officers averred that they recovered 3 sachets of shabu weighing 10.4 grams inside a jewelry box on petitioners' living room. They also seized one (1) big gift pack containing dried marijuana leaves weighing more or less 950 grams and two (2) gift packs containing nine (9) bricks of dried marijuana leaves weighing 800 grams on top of the head board of petitioners' bed. Moreover, the finding of a dangerous drug in the house or within the premises of the house of the accused is prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi.[18]
	GR No. 189843 2013-03-20	PEOPLE v. ZENAIDA SORIANO y USI PEREZ, J.
It is also worthy to note that PO2 Bernardo was able to render a clear and direct narration of the details of the buy-bust operation that led to the arrest of accused-appellants. The accused-appellants, on the other hand, could not impute any ill motive on the part of the arresting officers to falsely accuse them of committing the crimes. In fact, both accused-appellants testified that they did not know the apprehending officers. For these reasons, the contention of the defense that the doctrine of regularity of performance of official duty is inapplicable in the present case must fail.[24]
	GR No. 199735 2012-10-24	PEOPLE v. AISA MUSA Y PINASILO VELASCO JR., J.
Since the "perfect chain" is almost always impossible to obtain, non-compliance with Sec. 21 of RA 9165, as stated in the Implementing Rules and Regulations, does not, without more, automatically render the seizure of the dangerous drug void, and evidence is admissible as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team.[29]
	GR No. 191266 2011-06-06	PEOPLE v. DARIUS BAUTISTA Y ORSINO VELASCO JR., J.
We have ruled time and again that non-compliance with the afore-quoted provisions does not render the seizure of the dangerous drug void and the evidence inadmissible. [52] Conversely, the absence of a showing that the apprehending officer did not make an inventory of the seized items and that he did not take photographs of them is not fatal. [53]