This case has been cited 24 times or more.
|
2015-11-09 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| It is settled that findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts and speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings.[44] The foregoing rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the CA.[45] | |||||
|
2014-04-07 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| With the unbroken chain of custody duly established by the prosecution evidence, the CA did not err in giving the same full credence in contrast to the denial by appellant who failed to substantiate his allegation of frame-up and extortion. Frame-up, like alibi, is generally viewed with caution by the Court because it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove. It is a common and standard line of defense in prosecutions of violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[37] To substantiate such defense, the evidence must be clear and convincing and should show that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty. Otherwise, the police officers' testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit.[38] No such evidence was presented by appellant in this case. The CA even quoted in part the decision of the RTC which highlighted the irreconcilable inconsistencies in the testimonies of defense witnesses on what transpired during the buy-bust operation. | |||||
|
2014-03-10 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Case law has it that non-compliance with the abovequoted provision of RA 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations is not fatal and 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] | |||||
|
2013-02-13 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| For the defense position to prosper, the defense must adduce clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that government officials have performed their duties in a regular and proper manner.[16] Galido failed to present any evidence that the police officials were distrustful in their performance of duties. He even testified that prior to the arrest, he did not have any quarrel nor misunderstanding with the police officers nor was he acquainted with any reason that they carried a grudge against him.[17] | |||||
|
2012-02-08 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Time and again, this Court has ruled that alibi and frame up are weak forms of defense usually resorted to in drug-related cases. In this regard, the Court is careful in appreciating them and giving them probable value because this type of defense is easy to concoct. This Court is, of course, not unaware of instances when our law enforcers would utilize means like planting evidence just to extract information, but then again the Court does realize the disastrous consequences on the enforcement of law and order, not to mention the well-being of society, if the courts, solely on the basis of the police officers' alleged rotten reputation, accept in every instance this form of defense which can be so easily fabricated. It is precisely for this reason that the legal presumption that official duty has been regularly performed exists. Bare denial cannot prevail over the positive identification by SPO4 Taruc of Arriola as the one who sold them the shabu.[8] For the defense position to prosper, the defense must adduce clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that government officials have performed their duties in a regular and proper manner.[9] This, unfortunately, Arriola failed to supply. What she made was a bare allegation of frame-up without presenting any credible witness that would support her claim. | |||||
|
2011-01-26 |
VELASCO 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 Sec. 21 of the IRR does not make the items seized inadmissible.[25] 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."[26] | |||||
|
2010-12-13 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Let it be stressed that non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 does not affect the admissibility of the evidence but only its weight.[66] Thus, had the subject items in this case been admissible, their evidentiary merit and probative value would be insufficient to warrant conviction. | |||||
|
2010-11-15 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Evidently, the law itself lays down exceptions to its requirements. Thus, contrary to the assertions of accused-appellant, Sec. 21 of the IRR need not be followed with pedantic rigor. It is settled that non-compliance with Sec. 21 does not render an accused's arrest illegal or make the items seized inadmissible.[20] 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."[21] | |||||
|
2010-10-20 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Clearly, the law itself lays down exceptions to its requirements. Thus, non-compliance with the provision is not fatal. In fact, it is settled that non-compliance with Sec. 21 of the IRR does not render an accused's arrest illegal or make the items seized inadmissible.[44] 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."[45] | |||||
|
2010-10-06 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Frame-up, like alibi, is generally viewed with caution by the Court because it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove. It is a common and standard line of defense in prosecutions of violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[25] And so is the likewise repeated referral to the primacy of the constitutional presumption of innocence over the presumption of regularity in the performance of public functions,[26] the contention being that the frame-up argument is supported by the constitutional presumption of innocence. | |||||
|
2010-08-25 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The issue, in the event of non-compliance with above-quoted provision of R.A. No. 9165, does not pertain to admissibility of evidence, but to weight-evidentiary merit or probative value thereof.[8] | |||||
|
2010-08-08 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| It must be stressed that said "justifiable ground" will remain unknown in the light of the apparent failure of the accused-appellant to challenge the custody and safekeeping or the issue of disposition and preservation of the subject drugs and drug paraphernalia before the RTC. She cannot be allowed too late in the day to question the police officers' alleged non-compliance with Section 21 for the first time on appeal.[30] In People v. Sta. Maria,[31] in which the very same issue was raised, We ruled: 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. (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2010-06-29 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Notably, the defense did not raise this issue during trial. Be that as it may, we explained in People v. Del Monte[10] that what is of vital importance 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 or innocence of the accused. The existence of the dangerous drug is a condition sine qua non for conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the crime and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction. Thus, it is essential that the identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond doubt. The chain of custody requirement performs the function of ensuring that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, so much so that unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence are removed.[11] | |||||
|
2010-06-16 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| From the point of view of jurisprudence, we are not beating any new path by holding that the failure to undertake the required photography and immediate marking of seized items may be excused by the unique circumstances of a case. In People v. Resurreccion,[50] we already stated that "marking upon immediate confiscation" does not exclude the possibility that marking can be at the police station or office of the apprehending team. In the cases of People v. Rusiana,[51] People v. Hernandez,[52] and People v. Gum-Oyen,[53] the apprehending team marked the confiscated items at the police station and not at the place of seizure. Nevertheless, we sustained the conviction because the evidence showed that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items seized had been preserved. To reiterate what we have held in past cases, we are not always looking for the strict step-by-step adherence to the procedural requirements; what is important is to ensure the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as these would determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. We succinctly explained this in People v. Del Monte[54] when we held: We would like to add that non-compliance with Section 21 of said law, particularly the making of the inventory and the photographing of the drugs confiscated and/or seized, will not render the drugs inadmissible in evidence. Under Section 3 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules. For evidence to be inadmissible, there should be a law or rule which forbids its reception. If there is no such law or rule, the evidence must be admitted subject only to the evidentiary weight that will [be] accorded it by the courts. x x x | |||||
|
2010-02-09 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant, during his testimony and in his Appellant's Brief, merely denied the charge against him. According to him, he was just having breakfast when the members of the buy-bust team suddenly barged inside the house and arrested him. Against the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, appellant's plain denial of the offenses charged, unsubstantiated by any credible and convincing evidence, must simply fail.[31] Frame-up, like alibi, is generally viewed with caution by this Court, because it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove. Moreover, it is a common and standard line of defense in prosecutions of violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[32] For this claim to prosper, the defense must adduce clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that government officials have performed their duties in a regular and proper manner.[33] Unfortunately, the accused-appellant miserably failed to present any evidence that the members of the buy-bust operation team did not properly perform their duty, or that the entire operation was coupled with any improper motive. | |||||
|
2009-09-04 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Jurisprudence teems with pronouncements that failure to strictly comply with Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165[74] does not necessarily render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as these would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[75] In the present case, we see substantial compliance by the police with the required procedure on the custody and control of the confiscated items, thus showing that the integrity of the seized evidence was not compromised. We refer particularly to the succession of events established by evidence, to the overall handling of the seized items by specified individuals, to the test results obtained, under a situation where no objection to admissibility was ever raised by the defense. All these, to the unprejudiced mind, show that the evidence seized were the same evidence tested and subsequently identified and testified to in court. In People v. Del Monte,[76] we explained: We would like to add that non-compliance with Section 21 of said law, particularly the making of the inventory and the photographing of the drugs confiscated and/or seized, will not render the drugs inadmissible in evidence. Under Section 3 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules. For evidence to be inadmissible, there should be a law or rule which forbids its reception. If there is no such law or rule, the evidence must be admitted subject only to the evidentiary weight that will accorded it by the courts. x x x | |||||
|
2009-06-22 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The same has no merit. The integrity of the chain of custody of the evidence was not compromised. This Court has explained in People v. Del Monte[21] that what is of utmost importance 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 or innocence of the accused. The existence of the dangerous drug is a condition sine qua non for conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs.[22] SPO2 Trambulo, the poseur-buyer, testified that upon confiscation of the box with the shabu, he affixed his initials CVT and the date of confiscation of the box. Thereafter, he placed the evidence in his car until they reached the CIDG office, whereupon he showed the same to P/Inspector Culili and the evidence was inventoried as well. Culili then instructed him to bring the evidence to the crime laboratory for examination. | |||||
|
2009-04-07 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| All told, the elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs have been established by the prosecution. These are (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it.[20] What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[21] These two elements were sufficiently established in court. Anent the first element, an examination of the records shows that the chain of custody over the drugs was unbroken. The prosecution was able to account for the drugs' handling from the time it was seized until it was offered into evidence.[22] | |||||
|
2009-01-19 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[13] | |||||
|
2008-10-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| This Court can no longer find out what justifiable reasons existed, if any, since the defense did not raise this issue during trial.[40] Be that as it may, this Court has explained in People v. Del Monte[41] that what is of utmost importance 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 or innocence of the accused. The existence of the dangerous drug is a condition sine qua non for conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the crime and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction.[42] Thus, it is essential that the identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond doubt. The chain of custody requirement performs the function of ensuring that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, so much so that unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence are removed. | |||||
|
2008-09-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The defense contends there is a clear doubt on whether the specimens examined by the chemist and eventually presented in court were the same specimens recovered from accused-appellant. The prosecution's failure to submit in evidence the required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated pursuant to Section 21,[19] Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 will not discharge accused-appellant from his crime. Non-compliance with said section is not fatal and will not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. In People v. Del Monte,[20] this Court held that 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 instant case, we find the integrity of the drugs seized intact, and there is no doubt that the three sachets of drugs seized from accused-appellant were the same ones examined for chemical analysis, and that the crystalline substance contained therein was later on determined to be positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). | |||||
|
2008-07-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Initially, it is best to emphasize that defendant-appellant's defense of alleged non-compliance by the arresting officers with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 was raised belatedly and for the first time on appeal. This is not the first time that this Court has encountered an issue like the one in the instant case. Recently, in People v. Norberto del Monte y Gapay @ Obet,[32] this Court ruled that non-compliance with Section 21 would not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible.[33] This Court succinctly pronounced:We would like to add that non-compliance with Section 21 of said law, particularly the making of the inventory and the photographing of the drugs confiscated and/or seized, will not render the drugs inadmissible in evidence. Under Section 3 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules. For evidence to be inadmissible, there should be a law or rule which forbids its reception. If there is no such law or rule, the evidence must be admitted subject only to the evidentiary weight that will [be] accorded it by the courts. One example is that provided in Section 31 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court wherein a party producing a document as genuine which has been altered and appears to be altered after its execution, in a part material to the question in dispute, must account for the alteration. His failure do so shall make the document inadmissible in evidence. This is clearly provided for in the rules.[34] | |||||
|
2008-07-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Neither would non-compliance with Section 21[51] render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible.[52] 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.[53] | |||||
|
2008-06-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| After going over the evidence on record, we find that there, indeed, was a buy-bust operation involving appellants. The prosecution's failure to submit in evidence the required physical inventory of the seized drugs and the photograph pursuant to Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 will not exonerate appellants. Non-compliance with said section is not fatal and 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.[32] In the instant case, we find the integrity of the drugs seized intact. The chain of custody of the drugs subject matter of the case was shown not to have been broken. After seizure of the drugs from appellants' possession, P02 Sistemio and PO2 Arojada marked them with their initials and turned them over to SPO1 Lopez who, on the same day, sent these plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance to PNP Provincial Crime Laboratory Office 3, Bulacan Provincial Office, Camp Alejo Santos, Malolos, Bulacan, for laboratory examination to determine the presence of dangerous drugs. After a qualitative examination conducted on the specimens, Police Inspector Nellson C. Sta. Maria, Forensic Chemical Officer, concluded that the white crystalline substance was positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug. There can be no doubt that the drugs seized from appellants were the same ones examined in the crime laboratory. This statement is bolstered by the defense's admission of the existence, due execution and genuineness of the request for laboratory examination, the Chemistry Report and specimens submitted. We agree with the Court of Appeals when it said:While it is true that counsel for appellants, during the cross-examination of PO2 Sistemio, questioned the latter on non-compliance with Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 regarding the immediate physical inventory and photographing of the seized dangerous drug, there is no showing that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated shabu from appellants at the time of the buy-bust had not been properly preserved by the apprehending team. PO2 Sistemio explained that the seized substance contained in three properly marked plastic sachets were sent for chemical analysis to the PNP Crime Laboratory at Camp Alejo Santos in Malolos City, Bulacan. Significantly, such an objection was not reiterated by the appellants in their Demurrer to Evidence which was focused merely on the alleged inconsistencies in the narration of the details of the buy-bust by prosecution witnesses PO2 Sistemio and PO2 Arojado, as well as non-presentation of the marked boodle money which supposedly disproves the sale.[33] Appellants' argument that the buy-bust operation was not coordinated with the PDEA is specious. From the testimonies of the defense witnesses, it is clear that they all know that the buy-bust operation was conducted by the elements of the PDEA. It is thus nonsensical for the defense to argue that the operation was not coordinated with the PDEA if it was the PDEA itself that conducted the entrapment. Moreover, said argument is belied by the defense's admission that the PDEA coordinated with Barangays Guyong and Poblacion via cellphone regarding the conduct of the buy-bust operation. | |||||