This case has been cited 27 times or more.
|
2014-09-03 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Strictly speaking, the aforecited provision of the IRR does not even require that the certificate of inventory must indicate the markings and the weight of the seized items. In fact, the rule even sanctions substantial compliance with the procedure to establish a chain of custody, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are property preserved by the apprehending officers. In People v. Pringas,[42] the Court recognized that the strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21 may not always be possible under field conditions; the police operates under varied conditions, and cannot at all times attend to all the niceties of the procedures in the handling of confiscated evidence. | |||||
|
2013-06-13 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| First, on the lack of signature of an elected official and the failure to indicate the name of the person who affixed his signature as DOJ representative in the inventory report, jurisprudence has maintained that "[n]on-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with Section 21 is not fatal as long as there is justifiable ground therefor, and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items, are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. Its non-compliance will not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused."[48] | |||||
|
2012-11-21 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| However, non-compliance with Section 21 does not necessarily render the arrest illegal or the items seized inadmissible.[11] What is essential is that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved which would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[12] Thus, Section 21, Article II of the Implementing Rules of R.A. No. 9165 provides - | |||||
|
2012-10-03 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| People v. Pringas[73] teaches that non- compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with Section 21 is not necessarily fatal. Its non- compliance will not automatically render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. We recognize that the strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21 may not always be possible under field conditions; the police operates under varied conditions, and cannot at all times attend to all the niceties of the procedures in the handling of confiscated evidence. [74] | |||||
|
2012-04-18 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| In People v. Pringas,[42] the non-compliance by the buy-bust team with Section 21, supra, was held not to be fatal for as long as there was justifiable ground for it, and for as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated or seized articles were properly preserved by the apprehending officer or team. The Court further pronounced therein that such non-compliance would not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible, for what was of utmost importance was the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized or confiscated articles, considering that they were to be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. | |||||
|
2012-02-29 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The Court of Appeals found no compelling reason to overturn the verdict of guilt imposed by the trial court upon the accused-appellant. The appellate court upheld the ruling of the RTC that the evidence of the prosecution clearly established the concurrence of all the elements of the crimes of illegal sale and possession of prohibited drugs. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses proved the fact that a buy-bust operation was conducted by the police, which resulted in the apprehension of the accused-appellant after she was caught in flagrante delicto in the act of selling shabu and possessing another sachet thereof. The appellate court likewise rejected the accused-appellant's contention that she was a victim of a frame-up since there was no evidence of any ill or improper motive on the part of the police that would have impelled the latter to fabricate grave charges against the accused-appellant. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals disregarded the allegation of the accused-appellant that the non-compliance with the provisions of Section 21(1)[40] of Republic Act No. 9165 on the part of the police was fatal to the prosecution's case. Citing People v. Pringas,[41] the appellate court held that "[f]ailure to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 will not render the arrest of the accused illegal, nor will it result to the inadmissibility in evidence against the accused of the illegal drugs seized in the course of the entrapment. What is of utmost relevance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated illegal drugs, for in the end, the same would be the thrust that shall determine the guilt or innocence of the accused." | |||||
|
2011-10-05 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| We are not unaware of existing jurisprudence holding that non-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 is not fatal as long as there is justifiable ground therefor, and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items, are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. Its non-compliance will not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[27] | |||||
|
2011-07-20 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Non-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with Section 21 is not fatal as long as there is justifiable ground therefor, and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. [25] Its non-compliance will not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. [26] What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. [27] In this particular case, it is undisputed that police officers Pajo and Simon were members of the buy-bust operation team. The fact that it was Inspector Ferdinand B. Dacillo who signed the letter-request for laboratory examination does not in any way affect the integrity of the items confiscated. All the requirements for the proper chain of custody had been observed. As testified to by PO2 Pajo regarding the procedure undertaken after the consummation of the buy-bust operation: Prosecutor | |||||
|
2011-06-06 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Non-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with Section 21 is not fatal as Jong as there is justifiable ground, therefor, and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items, are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. Us non-compliance will not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[21] (citation omitted, underscoring and emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2011-01-31 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Of course, People v. Pringas [17] teaches that non-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with Section 21 is not fatal. Mere failure to comply with Section 21 will not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. But what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. [18] This function in buy-bust operations is performed by the chain of custody requirement which ensures that doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. Hence, in a long line of cases, we have considered it fatal for the prosecution to fail to prove that the specimen submitted for laboratory examination was the same one allegedly seized from the accused. [19] Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 which implements R.A. No. 9165 defines "chain of custody" as follows: "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 of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition[.] [20] | |||||
|
2011-01-10 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Nonetheless, People v. Pringas[16] teaches that non-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with Section 21 is not necessarily fatal. Its non-compliance will not automatically render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[17] We recognize that the strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21 may not always be possible under field conditions; the police operates under varied conditions, and cannot at all times attend to all the niceties of the procedures in the handling of confiscated evidence.[18] As provided in Section 21, Article II of the Implementing Rules of R.A. No. 9165: SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. - The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner: | |||||
|
2010-12-14 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Still, Webb is not entitled to acquittal for the failure of the State to produce the semen specimen at this late stage. For one thing, the ruling in Brady v. Maryland[9] that he cites has long be overtaken by the decision in Arizona v. Youngblood,[10] where the U.S. Supreme Court held that due process does not require the State to preserve the semen specimen although it might be useful to the accused unless the latter is able to show bad faith on the part of the prosecution or the police. Here, the State presented a medical expert who testified on the existence of the specimen and Webb in fact sought to have the same subjected to DNA test. | |||||
|
2010-09-01 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Non-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with Section 21 is not fatal as long as there is justifiable ground therefor, and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items, are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. Its non-compliance will not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[11] (citation omitted, emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied) | |||||
|
2010-08-25 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The issue of the police officers' non-compliance with Sec. 21, Article II of RA 9165 was also raised by Rosialda before the CA. However, relying on People v. Pringas,[6] the CA ruled that the failure to comply with Sec. 21 does not render the arrest of the accused illegal nor the items seized/confiscated inadmissible, for as long as there is a justifiable ground for such failure, and the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer. | |||||
|
2010-08-08 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Elevated before it, the Court of Appeals denied the appeal and affirmed the RTC decision based on the testimonies of PO1 Mapula and PO2 Laro on the circumstances surrounding the buy-bust operation.[12] The CA found no reason to overturn the RTC findings as it assessed the witnesses to be candid and straightforward. It rejected the defense of denial and frame-up and gave greater credence to PO1 Mapula's testimony favoring it with the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions. It also sustained the findings of the trial court that conspiracy existed between accused Campomanes and the petitioner. The CA brushed aside the attack on the non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 citing the case of People v. Pringas,[13] where it was held that non-compliance is not fatal as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated items were properly preserved.[14] | |||||
|
2010-07-26 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| But, as this Court has held in recent cases, i.e. People v. Agulay, [21] People v. Pringas,[22] and in the more recent case of People v. Quebral,[23] failure to comply strictly with those requirements will not render the seizure of the prohibited drugs invalid for so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers. Noteworthy as well is the proviso in the particular section of the Implementing Rules which states that `non-compliance with the stipulated procedure, under justifiable grounds, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items, for as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers.' The evident purpose of the procedure provided for 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 of or innocence of the accused. | |||||
|
2010-05-06 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the elements are: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.[31] | |||||
|
2010-05-06 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| This Court has consistently ruled that non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 will not necessarily render the items seized or confiscated in a buy-bust operation inadmissible.[41] Strict compliance with the letter of Section 21 is not required if there is a clear showing that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved, i.e., the items being offered in court as exhibits are, without a specter of doubt, the very same ones recovered in the buy-bust operation.[42] Hence, once the possibility of substitution has been negated by evidence of an unbroken and cohesive chain of custody over the contraband, such contraband may be admitted and stand as proof of the corpus delicti notwithstanding the fact that it was never made the subject of an inventory or was photographed pursuant to Section 21(1) of Republic Act No. 9165.[43] | |||||
|
2009-12-04 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Second, it bears to stress that Fernando was indicted for illegal possession of dangerous drugs. In the prosecution of this offense, the ownership of the bag where the shabu and drug paraphernalia were found is really inconsequential. The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal possession of dangerous drugs are: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.[19] Elucidating on the nature of this offense, the Court in People v. Tira wrote: x x x This crime is mala prohibita, and, as such, criminal intent is not an essential element. However, the prosecution must prove that the accused had the intent to possess (animus posidendi) the drugs. Possession, under the law, includes not only actual possession, but also constructive possession. Actual possession exists when the drug is in the immediate physical possession or control of the accused. On the other hand, constructive possession exists when the drug is under the dominion and control of the accused or when he has the right to exercise dominion and control over the place where it is found. Exclusive possession or control is not necessary. The accused cannot avoid conviction if his right to exercise control and dominion over the place where the contraband is located, is shared with another.[20] (Emphasis ours.) | |||||
|
2009-09-04 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The Court is of course mindful of its pronouncement in People v. Pringas[21] that: Non-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with Section 21 is not fatal as long as there is justifiable ground therefor, and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items, are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. Its non-compliance will not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. (Citation omitted, underscoring and emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2009-08-27 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| As long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items, are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, the failure to issue a receipt will not render the items seized/confiscated inadmissible as evidence. As held by the Court in People v. Alvin Pringas,[19] what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. | |||||
|
2009-08-27 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Non-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with Section 21 is not fatal as long as there is justifiable ground therefor, and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items, are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. Its non-compliance will not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[16] (Citation omitted, emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2008-12-10 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Non-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with Section 21 is not fatal as long as there is justifiable ground therefor, and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items, are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. Its non-compliance will not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[17] (Citation omitted, emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied) | |||||
|
2008-07-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The rule was similarly laid down in People v. Pringas,[35] in which this Court had the occasion to rule on the same issue, thus:As regards Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, appellant insists there was a violation of said section when pictures, showing him together with the confiscated shabu, were not immediately taken after his arrest. He added that the Joint Affidavit of Arrest of the apprehending team did not indicate if the members thereof physically made an inventory of the illegal drugs in the presence of the appellant or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and given a copy thereof. In short, appellant insists that non-compliance with Section 21 regarding the custody and disposition of the confiscated/seized dangerous drugs and paraphernalia, i.e., the taking of pictures and the making of an inventory, will make these items inadmissible in evidence. | |||||
|
2008-04-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The law excuses non-compliance under justifiable grounds. However, whatever justifiable grounds may excuse the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation in this case from complying with Section 21 will remain unknown, because appellant did not question during trial the safekeeping of the items seized from him. Indeed, the police officers' alleged violations of Sections 21 and 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 were not raised before the trial court but were instead raised for the first time on appeal. In no instance did appellant least intimate at the trial court that there were lapses in the safekeeping of seized items that affected their integrity and evidentiary value. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such objection he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal. (Emphases supplied.) In People v. Pringas,[23] we explained that non-compliance with Section 21 will not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. In the case at bar, appellant never questioned the custody and disposition of the drug that was taken from him. In fact, he stipulated that the drug subject matter of this case was forwarded to PNP Regional Crime Laboratory Office 3, Malolos, Bulacan for laboratory examination which examination gave positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. We thus find the integrity and the evidentiary value of the drug seized from appellant not to have been compromised. | |||||