Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROGELIO S. REYES v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 207635 2015-02-18	PEOPLE v. DANTE DELA PEÑA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In the prosecution of a case for violation of R.A. 9165, both for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the primary consideration is to ensure that the identity and integrity of the seized drugs have been preserved from the time they were confiscated from the accused until their presentation as evidence in court.[46] The prosecution must establish with moral certainty that the specimen submitted to the crime laboratory and found positive for dangerous drugs, and finally introduced in evidence against the accused was the same illegal drug that was confiscated from him.
	GR No. 198314 2014-09-24	PEOPLE v. RICHARD GUINTO Y SAN ANDRES PEREZ, J.
In conclusion, this case exemplifies the doctrine that conviction must stand on the strength of the Prosecution's evidence, not on the weakness of the defense. Evidence proving the guilt of the accused must always be beyond reasonable doubt. If the evidence of guilt falls short of this requirement, the Court will not allow the accused to be deprived of his liberty. His acquittal should come as a matter of course.[43]
	GR No. 193768 2014-03-05	PEOPLE v. JERRY CARANTO Y PROPETA PEREZ, J.
To secure a conviction for the illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be present: (a) the identities of the buyer and seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the thing. It is material to establish that the transaction actually took place, and to bring to the court the corpus delicti as evidence.[20] In the prosecution of a drug case, the primary consideration is to ensure that the identity and integrity of the seized drugs and other related articles have been preserved from the time they were confiscated from the accused until their presentation as evidence in court.[21]
	GR No. 199901 2013-10-09	PEOPLE v. GARYZALDY GUZON REYES, J.
The appeal is meritorious. The Court acquits Guzon for the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In Reyes v. CA,[36] the Court emphasized that a "[c]onviction must stand on the strength of the [p]rosecution's evidence, not on the weakness of the defense which the accused put up. Evidence proving the guilt of the accused must always be beyond reasonable doubt. If the evidence of guilt falls short of this requirement, the Court will not allow the accused to be deprived of his liberty. His acquittal should come as a matter of course."[37]
	GR No. 198115 2013-02-27	PEOPLE v. JOSE ALEX SECRETO Y VILLANUEVA PEREZ, J.
To secure a conviction for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be present: "(a) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the thing.[19] It is material to establish that the transaction or sale actually took place, and to bring to the court the corpus delicti as evidence.[20] As to the crime of illegal possession of shabu, it is necessary to prove the following essential elements of the crime: "(a) the accused [was] in possession of an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited or dangerous drug; (b) such possession [was] not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug."[21] And, in the prosecution of these offenses, the primary consideration is to ensure that the identity and integrity of the seized drugs and other related articles has been preserved from the time they were confiscated from the accused until their presentation as evidence in court.[22]
	GR No. 191062 2012-09-19	PEOPLE v. MOHAMAD ANGKOB Y MLANG PEREZ, J.
The duty of seeing to the integrity of the dangerous drugs and substances is discharged only when the arresting law enforcer ensures that the chain of custody is unbroken.[27] Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 defines the chain of custody as: b. "Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody [was] of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition[.]