Lawyerly

GR No. 177320

2012-02-22

BERSAMIN, J.

In drug-related prosecutions, the State bears the burden not only of proving the elements of the offenses of sale and possession of shabu under Republic Act No. 9165, but also of proving the corpus delicti, the body of the crime. "Corpus delicti has been defined as the body or substance of the crime and, in its primary sense, refers to the fact that a crime has been actually committed. As applied to a particular offense, it means the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged. The corpus delicti is a compound fact made up of two (2) things, viz: the existence of a certain act or result forming the basis of the criminal charge, and the existence of a criminal agency as the cause of this act or result."[24] The dangerous drug is itself the very corpus delicti of the violation of the law prohibiting the possession of the dangerous drug.[25] Consequently, the State does not comply with the indispensable requirement of proving corpus delicti when the drug is missing, and when substantial gaps occur in the chain of custody of the seized drugs as to raise doubts on the authenticity of the evidence presented in court.[26]

GR No. 187736

2012-02-08

PEOPLE v. FLORDELIZA ARRIOLA Y DE LARA

MENDOZA, J.

In the prosecution of drug related cases, it is of paramount importance that the existence of the drug, the corpus delicti of the crime, be established beyond doubt. Its existence is a condition sine qua non. It is precisely in this regard that central to this requirement is the question of whether the drug submitted for laboratory examination and presented in court was actually the one that was seized from or sold by Arriola.[17] As such, the chain of custody rule has been adopted in order to address this core issue.

GR No. 182010

2010-08-25

SUSAN ESQUILLO Y ROMINES v. PEOPLE

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Petitioner did not question early on her warrantless arrest - before her arraignment. Neither did she take steps to quash the Information on such ground. Verily, she raised the issue of warrantless arrest - as well as the inadmissibility of evidence acquired on the occasion thereof- for the first time only on appeal before the appellate court.[18] By such omissions, she is deemed to have waived any objections on the legality of her arrest.[19]

GR No. 186533

2010-08-09

PEOPLE v. EFREN CASTILLO

PEREZ, J.

Denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and, unless supported by clear and convincing evidence, the same cannot prevail over the positive declaration of the victim, who in a simple and straightforward manner, convincingly identified the appellant who sexually molested her.[50] For alibi to prosper, the accused must show that it was impossible for him to have been at the scene of the commission of the crime at the time of its commission.[51]

GR No. 188611

2010-06-16

PEOPLE v. BELEN MARIACOS

NACHURA, J.

In all prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, the existence of all dangerous drugs is a sine qua non for conviction. The dangerous drug is the very corpus delicti of that crime.[35]

GR No. 186498

2010-03-26

PEOPLE v. RONALDO DE GUZMAN Y DANZIL

NACHURA, J.

In a prosecution for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, the existence of the dangerous drug is a condition sine qua non for conviction. The dangerous drug is the very corpus delicti of the crime.[24]

GR No. 179213

2009-09-03

PEOPLE v. NICOLAS GUTIERREZ Y LICUANAN APPELLANT.

CARPIO MORALES, J.

In prosecutions involving narcotics, the narcotic substance itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[16] Proof beyond reasonable doubt demands that unwavering exactitude be observed in establishing the corpus delicti.[17] The "chain of custody" rule performs this function as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[18]

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. 182296

2009-04-07

SUSAN SALES Y JIMENA v. PEOPLE

CARPIO MORALES, J.

In all prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, the existence of all dangerous drugs is a sine qua non for conviction. The dangerous drug is the very corpus delicti of the crime of violation of the said Act.[24] It is thus essential that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit; and that the identity of said drug be established with the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt. The "chain of custody" requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[25]

GR No. 181494

2009-03-17

PEOPLE v. MONALYN CERVANTES Y SOLAR

VELASCO JR., J.

At any rate, Inspector Tria's testimony on, and the presentation of, the chemistry report in question only established, at best, the existence, due execution, and authenticity of the results of the chemistry analysis.[32] It does not prove compliance with the requisite chain of custody over the confiscated substance from the time of seizure of the evidence. In this regard, the Court in effect stated in Malillin that unless the state can show by records or testimony that the integrity of the evidence has not been compromised by accounting for the continuous whereabouts of the object evidence at least between the time it came into the possession of the police officers until it was tested in the laboratory,[33] then the prosecution cannot maintain that it was able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. So it was that in People v. Kimura the Court said that in establishing the corpus delicti, proof beyond reasonable doubt demands that "unwavering exactitude"[34] be observed, a demand which may be addressed by hewing to the chain-of-custody rule. Evidently, the prosecution has not proved that the substance seized in front of the McDonald's was the same substance adduced in evidence as an indispensable element of corpus delicti of the crime, which failure produces a serious doubt as to accused-appellant's guilt.[35]

GR No. 175832

2008-10-15

PEOPLE v. SALVADOR SANCHEZ Y ESPIRITU

BRION, J.

Proof beyond reasonable doubt demands that unwavering exactitude be observed in establishing the corpus delicti: every fact necessary to constitute the crime must be established.[27] The chain of custody requirement performs this function in buy-bust operations as it ensures that doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[28] 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.[29]

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. 179939

2008-09-29

PEOPLE v. GERALDINE MAGAT Y PADERON

TINGA, J.

Similarly, in People v. Kimura,[30] the Narcom operatives failed to place markings on the alleged seized marijuana on the night the accused were arrested and to observe the procedure in the seizure and custody of the drug as embodied in the aforementioned Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 3, Series of 1979. Consequently, we held that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the corpus delicti.

GR NO. 173051

2007-07-31

PEOPLE v. GERARDO ORTEZA

TINGA, J.

The Court made a similar ruling in People v. Kimura,[31] where the Narcom operatives failed to place markings on the seized marijuana at the time the accused was arrested and to observe the procedure and take custody of the drug.

GR NO. 170233

2007-02-22

PEOPLE v. JESUS NUEVAS Y GARCIA

TINGA, J.

Without the dried marijuana leaves as evidence, Din's conviction cannot be sustained based on the remaining evidence. The Court has repeatedly declared that the conviction of the accused must rest not on the weakness of the defense but on the strength of the prosecution.[56] As such, Din deserves an acquittal.

GR NO. 162064

2006-03-14

SONNY ZARRAGA v. PEOPLE

TINGA, J.

Indispensable in all prosecutions for violation of RA 6245, such as the instant case, is the submission of proof that the sale of the illegal drug took place between the poseur-buyer and the seller. The element of sale must be unequivocally established in order to sustain a conviction. [14] Further, the corpus delicti must be presented as evidence in court. The corpus delicti should be identified with unwavering exactitude.[15]

	GR No. 177320 2012-02-22	PEOPLE v. CESAR BAUTISTA Y SANTOS BERSAMIN, J.
In drug-related prosecutions, the State bears the burden not only of proving the elements of the offenses of sale and possession of shabu under Republic Act No. 9165, but also of proving the corpus delicti, the body of the crime. "Corpus delicti has been defined as the body or substance of the crime and, in its primary sense, refers to the fact that a crime has been actually committed. As applied to a particular offense, it means the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged. The corpus delicti is a compound fact made up of two (2) things, viz: the existence of a certain act or result forming the basis of the criminal charge, and the existence of a criminal agency as the cause of this act or result."[24] The dangerous drug is itself the very corpus delicti of the violation of the law prohibiting the possession of the dangerous drug.[25] Consequently, the State does not comply with the indispensable requirement of proving corpus delicti when the drug is missing, and when substantial gaps occur in the chain of custody of the seized drugs as to raise doubts on the authenticity of the evidence presented in court.[26]
	GR No. 187736 2012-02-08	PEOPLE v. FLORDELIZA ARRIOLA Y DE LARA MENDOZA, J.
In the prosecution of drug related cases, it is of paramount importance that the existence of the drug, the corpus delicti of the crime, be established beyond doubt. Its existence is a condition sine qua non. It is precisely in this regard that central to this requirement is the question of whether the drug submitted for laboratory examination and presented in court was actually the one that was seized from or sold by Arriola.[17] As such, the chain of custody rule has been adopted in order to address this core issue.
	GR No. 182010 2010-08-25	SUSAN ESQUILLO Y ROMINES v. PEOPLE CARPIO MORALES, J.
Petitioner did not question early on her warrantless arrest - before her arraignment. Neither did she take steps to quash the Information on such ground. Verily, she raised the issue of warrantless arrest - as well as the inadmissibility of evidence acquired on the occasion thereof- for the first time only on appeal before the appellate court.[18] By such omissions, she is deemed to have waived any objections on the legality of her arrest.[19]
	GR No. 186533 2010-08-09	PEOPLE v. EFREN CASTILLO PEREZ, J.
Denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and, unless supported by clear and convincing evidence, the same cannot prevail over the positive declaration of the victim, who in a simple and straightforward manner, convincingly identified the appellant who sexually molested her.[50] For alibi to prosper, the accused must show that it was impossible for him to have been at the scene of the commission of the crime at the time of its commission.[51]
	GR No. 188611 2010-06-16	PEOPLE v. BELEN MARIACOS NACHURA, J.
In all prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, the existence of all dangerous drugs is a sine qua non for conviction. The dangerous drug is the very corpus delicti of that crime.[35]
	GR No. 186498 2010-03-26	PEOPLE v. RONALDO DE GUZMAN Y DANZIL NACHURA, J.
In a prosecution for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, the existence of the dangerous drug is a condition sine qua non for conviction. The dangerous drug is the very corpus delicti of the crime.[24]
	GR No. 179213 2009-09-03	PEOPLE v. NICOLAS GUTIERREZ Y LICUANAN APPELLANT. CARPIO MORALES, J.
In prosecutions involving narcotics, the narcotic substance itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[16] Proof beyond reasonable doubt demands that unwavering exactitude be observed in establishing the corpus delicti.[17] The "chain of custody" rule performs this function as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[18]
	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. 182296 2009-04-07	SUSAN SALES Y JIMENA v. PEOPLE CARPIO MORALES, J.
In all prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, the existence of all dangerous drugs is a sine qua non for conviction. The dangerous drug is the very corpus delicti of the crime of violation of the said Act.[24] It is thus essential that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit; and that the identity of said drug be established with the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt. The "chain of custody" requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[25]
	GR No. 181494 2009-03-17	PEOPLE v. MONALYN CERVANTES Y SOLAR VELASCO JR., J.
At any rate, Inspector Tria's testimony on, and the presentation of, the chemistry report in question only established, at best, the existence, due execution, and authenticity of the results of the chemistry analysis.[32] It does not prove compliance with the requisite chain of custody over the confiscated substance from the time of seizure of the evidence. In this regard, the Court in effect stated in Malillin that unless the state can show by records or testimony that the integrity of the evidence has not been compromised by accounting for the continuous whereabouts of the object evidence at least between the time it came into the possession of the police officers until it was tested in the laboratory,[33] then the prosecution cannot maintain that it was able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. So it was that in People v. Kimura the Court said that in establishing the corpus delicti, proof beyond reasonable doubt demands that "unwavering exactitude"[34] be observed, a demand which may be addressed by hewing to the chain-of-custody rule. Evidently, the prosecution has not proved that the substance seized in front of the McDonald's was the same substance adduced in evidence as an indispensable element of corpus delicti of the crime, which failure produces a serious doubt as to accused-appellant's guilt.[35]
	GR No. 175832 2008-10-15	PEOPLE v. SALVADOR SANCHEZ Y ESPIRITU BRION, J.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt demands that unwavering exactitude be observed in establishing the corpus delicti: every fact necessary to constitute the crime must be established.[27] The chain of custody requirement performs this function in buy-bust operations as it ensures that doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[28] 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.[29]
	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. 179939 2008-09-29	PEOPLE v. GERALDINE MAGAT Y PADERON TINGA, J.
Similarly, in People v. Kimura,[30] the Narcom operatives failed to place markings on the alleged seized marijuana on the night the accused were arrested and to observe the procedure in the seizure and custody of the drug as embodied in the aforementioned Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 3, Series of 1979. Consequently, we held that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the corpus delicti.
	GR NO. 173051 2007-07-31	PEOPLE v. GERARDO ORTEZA TINGA, J.
The Court made a similar ruling in People v. Kimura,[31] where the Narcom operatives failed to place markings on the seized marijuana at the time the accused was arrested and to observe the procedure and take custody of the drug.
	GR NO. 170233 2007-02-22	PEOPLE v. JESUS NUEVAS Y GARCIA TINGA, J.
Without the dried marijuana leaves as evidence, Din's conviction cannot be sustained based on the remaining evidence. The Court has repeatedly declared that the conviction of the accused must rest not on the weakness of the defense but on the strength of the prosecution.[56] As such, Din deserves an acquittal.
	GR NO. 162064 2006-03-14	SONNY ZARRAGA v. PEOPLE TINGA, J.
Indispensable in all prosecutions for violation of RA 6245, such as the instant case, is the submission of proof that the sale of the illegal drug took place between the poseur-buyer and the seller. The element of sale must be unequivocally established in order to sustain a conviction. [14] Further, the corpus delicti must be presented as evidence in court. The corpus delicti should be identified with unwavering exactitude.[15]

PEOPLE v. TOKOHISA KIMURA