Lawyerly

GR No. 199901

2013-10-09

REYES, J.

In addition to the foregoing, the Court finds merit in Guzon's argument that the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer to the witness stand was fatal to the prosecution's cause. We emphasize that in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must convincingly prove that the transaction or sale actually transpired.[71] In the instant case, the poseur- buyer in the buy-bust operation, a civilian, was the witness competent to prove such fact, given the testimony of PO2 Tuzon that at time the supposed sale happened, he and PO3 Manuel were positioned about 20 meters away from Guzon and the poseur-buyer. Although PO2 Tuzon testified during the trial on the supposed sale, such information he could offer was based only on conjecture, as may be derived from the supposed actions of Guzon and the poseur-buyer, or at most, hearsay, being information that was merely relayed to him by the alleged poseur-buyer. Given the 20-meter distance, it was unlikely for PO2 Tuzon to have heard the conversations between the alleged buyer and seller. True enough, his testimony provided that he and PO3 Manuel merely relied on an agreed signal, i.e., the poseur-buyer's removal of his cap, to indicate that the sale had been consummated. On cross-examination, PO2 Tuzon even admitted: [ATTY. BALUCIO:]

GR No. 179344

2011-08-03

PEOPLE v. EDGARDO FERMIN Y GREGORIO

PEREZ, J.

In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) that the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified.[30] The presence of these elements is sufficient to support the trial court's finding of appellants' guilt.[31] What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused.[32] The presentation in court of the corpus delicti -- the body or substance of the crime - establishes the fact that a crime has actually been committed.[33]

GR No. 183676

2011-06-22

RUEL AMPATUAN 'ALIAS RUEL v. PEOPLE

PEREZ, J.

In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) that the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified. [19] The presence of these elements is sufficient to support the trial court's finding of appellants' guilt. [20] What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused. [21] The presentation in court of the corpus delicti -- the body or substance of the crime - establishes the fact that a crime has actually been committed. [22]

GR No. 191366

2010-12-13

PEOPLE v. ARNOLD MARTINEZ Y ANGELES

MENDOZA, J.

This Court has repeatedly reversed conviction in drug cases for failure to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, resulting in the failure to properly preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. Some cases are People v. Garcia,[39] People v. Dela Cruz,[40] People v. Dela Cruz,[41] People v. Santos, Jr.,[42] People v. Nazareno,[43] People v. Orteza,[44] Zarraga v. People,[45] and People v. Kimura.[46]

GR No. 188570

2010-07-06

PEOPLE v. CHRISTOPHER DE MESA

NACHURA, J.

In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) that the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified.[15] The presence of these elements is sufficient to support the trial court's finding of appellants' guilt.[16] What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused.[17] The presentation in court of the corpus delicti -- the body or substance of the crime - establishes the fact that a crime has actually been committed.[18]

GR No. 179710

2010-06-29

PEOPLE v. ALDRIN BERDADERO Y ARMAMENTO

DEL CASTILLO, J.

The appellant's final contention that the failure to present the poseur-buyer is fatal and entitles him to an acquittal, again fails to impress. The non-presentation of the poseur-buyer is fatal only if there is no other eyewitness to the illicit transaction.[25] The testimonies of PO3 Balmes and PO2 Villas sufficiently established that the appellant is guilty of selling a dangerous drug. Their referral to the shabu handed by the appellant to the poseur-buyer as "something" merely indicates that at the time of the sale, they could only presume that the specimen sold by the appellant was shabu since they were conducting a buy-bust operation. They still had to submit the specimen to the crime laboratory for testing which later tested positive for shabu. Thus, the fact that the poseur-buyer was not presented does not weaken the evidence for the prosecution.

GR No. 178202

2010-05-14

PEOPLE v. NORMAN SITCO

VELASCO JR., J.

The Court reiterates that, on account of the built-in danger of abuse that it carries, a buy-bust operation is governed by specific procedures on the seizure and custody of drugs, separately from the general law procedures geared to ensure that the rights of persons under criminal investigation and of the accused facing a criminal charge are safeguarded.[25] To reiterate, the chain of custody requirement is necessary in order to remove doubts as to the identity of the evidence, by monitoring and tracking custody of the seized drugs from the accused, until they reach the court. We find that the procedure and statutory safeguards prescribed for compliance by drug enforcement agencies have not been followed in this case. A failure to comply with the aforequoted Sec. 21(1) of RA 9165 implies a concomitant failure on the part of the prosecution to establish the identity of the seized illegal items as part of the corpus delicti.[26]

GR No. 184760

2010-04-23

PEOPLE v. PATERNO LORENZO Y CASAS

PEREZ, J.

In People v. Orteza,[15] the Court explained the implications of the failure to comply with Paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, to wit: In People v. Laxa, where the buy-bust team failed to mark the confiscated marijuana immediately after the apprehension of the accused, the Court held that the deviation from the standard procedure in anti-narcotics operations produced doubts as to the origins of the marijuana. Consequently, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the corpus delicti.

GR No. 186498

2010-03-26

PEOPLE v. RONALDO DE GUZMAN Y DANZIL

NACHURA, J.

In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) that the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified.[21] What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused.[22] The presentation in court of the corpus delicti -- the body or the substance of the crime - establishes the fact that a crime has actually been committed.[23]

GR No. 172873

2010-03-19

PEOPLE v. ROLDAN MORALES Y MIDARASA

DEL CASTILLO, J.

We declared in People v. Orteza,[68] that the failure to comply with Paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 implied a concomitant failure on the part of the prosecution to establish the identity of the corpus delicti: In People v. Laxa, where the buy-bust team failed to mark the confiscated marijuana immediately after the apprehension of the accused, the Court held that the deviation from the standard procedure in anti-narcotics operations produced doubts as to the origins of the marijuana. Consequently, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the corpus delicti.

GR No. 182790

2009-04-24

PEOPLE v. CESAR CANTALEJO Y MANLANGIT

TINGA, J.

In People v. Orteza,[19] the Court citing People v. Laxa,[20] People v. Kimura[21] and Zarraga v. People,[22] reiterated the ruling that the failure of the police to comply with the procedure in the custody of the seized drugs raises doubt as to its origins.[23]

GR No. 173480

2009-02-25

PEOPLE v. RUIZ GARCIA Y RUIZ

BRION, J.

In People v. Orteza,[26] the Court, in discussing the implications of the failure to comply with Paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, declared:In People v. Laxa, where the buy-bust team failed to mark the confiscated marijuana immediately after the apprehension of the accused, the Court held that the deviation from the standard procedure in anti-narcotics operations produced doubts as to the origins of the marijuana. Consequently, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the corpus delicti.

GR No. 175832

2008-10-15

PEOPLE v. SALVADOR SANCHEZ Y ESPIRITU

BRION, J.

In People v. Orteza,[33] the Court had the occasion to discuss the implications of the failure to comply with Section 21, paragraph 1, to wit:... In People v. Laxa, where the buy-bust team failed to mark the confiscated marijuana immediately after the apprehension of the accused, the Court held that the deviation from the standard procedure in anti-narcotics operations produced doubts as to the origins of the marijuana. Consequently, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the corpus delicti.

GR No. 181545

2008-10-08

PEOPLE v. MARK DELA CRUZ

TINGA, J.

In People v. Orteza,[24] the Court citing People v. Laxa,[25] People v. Kimura[26] and Zarraga v. People,[27] reiterated the ruling that the failure of the police to comply with the procedure in the custody of the seized drugs raises doubt as to its origins.[28]

GR No. 170180

2007-11-23

ARSENIO VERGARA VALDEZ v. PEOPLE

TINGA, J,

In a line of cases, we have ruled as fatal to the prosecution's case its failure to prove that the specimen submitted for laboratory examination was the same one allegedly seized from the accused.[37] There can be no crime of illegal possession of a prohibited drug when nagging doubts persist on whether the item confiscated was the same specimen examined and established to be the prohibited drug.[38] As we discussed in People v. Orteza[39], where we deemed the prosecution to have failed in establishing all the elements necessary for conviction of appellant for illegal sale of shabu

GR No. 174771

2007-09-11

PEOPLE v. ALLAN NAZARENO Y CABURATAN

TINGA, J.

In the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and 3) the buyer and seller were identified.[23] In People v. Orteza,[24] we reiterated thus:x x x What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused.[25]

	GR No. 199901 2013-10-09	PEOPLE v. GARYZALDY GUZON REYES, J.
In addition to the foregoing, the Court finds merit in Guzon's argument that the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer to the witness stand was fatal to the prosecution's cause. We emphasize that in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must convincingly prove that the transaction or sale actually transpired.[71] In the instant case, the poseur- buyer in the buy-bust operation, a civilian, was the witness competent to prove such fact, given the testimony of PO2 Tuzon that at time the supposed sale happened, he and PO3 Manuel were positioned about 20 meters away from Guzon and the poseur-buyer. Although PO2 Tuzon testified during the trial on the supposed sale, such information he could offer was based only on conjecture, as may be derived from the supposed actions of Guzon and the poseur-buyer, or at most, hearsay, being information that was merely relayed to him by the alleged poseur-buyer. Given the 20-meter distance, it was unlikely for PO2 Tuzon to have heard the conversations between the alleged buyer and seller. True enough, his testimony provided that he and PO3 Manuel merely relied on an agreed signal, i.e., the poseur-buyer's removal of his cap, to indicate that the sale had been consummated. On cross-examination, PO2 Tuzon even admitted: [ATTY. BALUCIO:]
	GR No. 179344 2011-08-03	PEOPLE v. EDGARDO FERMIN Y GREGORIO PEREZ, J.
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) that the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified.[30] The presence of these elements is sufficient to support the trial court's finding of appellants' guilt.[31] What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused.[32] The presentation in court of the corpus delicti -- the body or substance of the crime - establishes the fact that a crime has actually been committed.[33]
	GR No. 183676 2011-06-22	RUEL AMPATUAN 'ALIAS RUEL v. PEOPLE PEREZ, J.
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) that the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified. [19] The presence of these elements is sufficient to support the trial court's finding of appellants' guilt. [20] What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused. [21] The presentation in court of the corpus delicti -- the body or substance of the crime - establishes the fact that a crime has actually been committed. [22]
	GR No. 191366 2010-12-13	PEOPLE v. ARNOLD MARTINEZ Y ANGELES MENDOZA, J.
This Court has repeatedly reversed conviction in drug cases for failure to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, resulting in the failure to properly preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. Some cases are People v. Garcia,[39] People v. Dela Cruz,[40] People v. Dela Cruz,[41] People v. Santos, Jr.,[42] People v. Nazareno,[43] People v. Orteza,[44] Zarraga v. People,[45] and People v. Kimura.[46]
	GR No. 188570 2010-07-06	PEOPLE v. CHRISTOPHER DE MESA NACHURA, J.
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) that the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified.[15] The presence of these elements is sufficient to support the trial court's finding of appellants' guilt.[16] What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused.[17] The presentation in court of the corpus delicti -- the body or substance of the crime - establishes the fact that a crime has actually been committed.[18]
	GR No. 179710 2010-06-29	PEOPLE v. ALDRIN BERDADERO Y ARMAMENTO DEL CASTILLO, J.
The appellant's final contention that the failure to present the poseur-buyer is fatal and entitles him to an acquittal, again fails to impress. The non-presentation of the poseur-buyer is fatal only if there is no other eyewitness to the illicit transaction.[25] The testimonies of PO3 Balmes and PO2 Villas sufficiently established that the appellant is guilty of selling a dangerous drug. Their referral to the shabu handed by the appellant to the poseur-buyer as "something" merely indicates that at the time of the sale, they could only presume that the specimen sold by the appellant was shabu since they were conducting a buy-bust operation. They still had to submit the specimen to the crime laboratory for testing which later tested positive for shabu. Thus, the fact that the poseur-buyer was not presented does not weaken the evidence for the prosecution.
	GR No. 178202 2010-05-14	PEOPLE v. NORMAN SITCO VELASCO JR., J.
The Court reiterates that, on account of the built-in danger of abuse that it carries, a buy-bust operation is governed by specific procedures on the seizure and custody of drugs, separately from the general law procedures geared to ensure that the rights of persons under criminal investigation and of the accused facing a criminal charge are safeguarded.[25] To reiterate, the chain of custody requirement is necessary in order to remove doubts as to the identity of the evidence, by monitoring and tracking custody of the seized drugs from the accused, until they reach the court. We find that the procedure and statutory safeguards prescribed for compliance by drug enforcement agencies have not been followed in this case. A failure to comply with the aforequoted Sec. 21(1) of RA 9165 implies a concomitant failure on the part of the prosecution to establish the identity of the seized illegal items as part of the corpus delicti.[26]
	GR No. 184760 2010-04-23	PEOPLE v. PATERNO LORENZO Y CASAS PEREZ, J.
In People v. Orteza,[15] the Court explained the implications of the failure to comply with Paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, to wit: In People v. Laxa, where the buy-bust team failed to mark the confiscated marijuana immediately after the apprehension of the accused, the Court held that the deviation from the standard procedure in anti-narcotics operations produced doubts as to the origins of the marijuana. Consequently, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the corpus delicti.
	GR No. 186498 2010-03-26	PEOPLE v. RONALDO DE GUZMAN Y DANZIL NACHURA, J.
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) that the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified.[21] What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused.[22] The presentation in court of the corpus delicti -- the body or the substance of the crime - establishes the fact that a crime has actually been committed.[23]
	GR No. 172873 2010-03-19	PEOPLE v. ROLDAN MORALES Y MIDARASA DEL CASTILLO, J.
We declared in People v. Orteza,[68] that the failure to comply with Paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 implied a concomitant failure on the part of the prosecution to establish the identity of the corpus delicti: In People v. Laxa, where the buy-bust team failed to mark the confiscated marijuana immediately after the apprehension of the accused, the Court held that the deviation from the standard procedure in anti-narcotics operations produced doubts as to the origins of the marijuana. Consequently, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the corpus delicti.
	GR No. 182790 2009-04-24	PEOPLE v. CESAR CANTALEJO Y MANLANGIT TINGA, J.
In People v. Orteza,[19] the Court citing People v. Laxa,[20] People v. Kimura[21] and Zarraga v. People,[22] reiterated the ruling that the failure of the police to comply with the procedure in the custody of the seized drugs raises doubt as to its origins.[23]
	GR No. 173480 2009-02-25	PEOPLE v. RUIZ GARCIA Y RUIZ BRION, J.
In People v. Orteza,[26] the Court, in discussing the implications of the failure to comply with Paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, declared:In People v. Laxa, where the buy-bust team failed to mark the confiscated marijuana immediately after the apprehension of the accused, the Court held that the deviation from the standard procedure in anti-narcotics operations produced doubts as to the origins of the marijuana. Consequently, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the corpus delicti.
	GR No. 175832 2008-10-15	PEOPLE v. SALVADOR SANCHEZ Y ESPIRITU BRION, J.
In People v. Orteza,[33] the Court had the occasion to discuss the implications of the failure to comply with Section 21, paragraph 1, to wit:... In People v. Laxa, where the buy-bust team failed to mark the confiscated marijuana immediately after the apprehension of the accused, the Court held that the deviation from the standard procedure in anti-narcotics operations produced doubts as to the origins of the marijuana. Consequently, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the corpus delicti.
	GR No. 181545 2008-10-08	PEOPLE v. MARK DELA CRUZ TINGA, J.
In People v. Orteza,[24] the Court citing People v. Laxa,[25] People v. Kimura[26] and Zarraga v. People,[27] reiterated the ruling that the failure of the police to comply with the procedure in the custody of the seized drugs raises doubt as to its origins.[28]
	GR No. 170180 2007-11-23	ARSENIO VERGARA VALDEZ v. PEOPLE TINGA, J,
In a line of cases, we have ruled as fatal to the prosecution's case its failure to prove that the specimen submitted for laboratory examination was the same one allegedly seized from the accused.[37] There can be no crime of illegal possession of a prohibited drug when nagging doubts persist on whether the item confiscated was the same specimen examined and established to be the prohibited drug.[38] As we discussed in People v. Orteza[39], where we deemed the prosecution to have failed in establishing all the elements necessary for conviction of appellant for illegal sale of shabu
	GR No. 174771 2007-09-11	PEOPLE v. ALLAN NAZARENO Y CABURATAN TINGA, J.
In the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and 3) the buyer and seller were identified.[23] In People v. Orteza,[24] we reiterated thus:x x x What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused.[25]

PEOPLE v. GERARDO ORTEZA