Lawyerly

GR No. 201845

2013-03-06

VELASCO JR., J.

The CA, thus, gravely erred in ruling that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated prohibited drug were properly preserved.[47] On the contrary, the prosecution failed to provide each and every link in the chain of custody. This runs contrary to the rule that the corpus delicti should be identified with unwavering exactitude.[48]

GR No. 191062

2012-09-19

PEOPLE v. MOHAMAD ANGKOB Y MLANG

PEREZ, J.

(1) the identities 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.[22]

GR No. 185715

2011-01-19

PEOPLE v. ERLINDA CAPUNO Y TISON

BRION, J.

We had the same rulings in People v. Gutierrez,[37] People v. Denoman,[38] People v. Partoza,[39] People v. Robles,[40] and People v. dela Cruz,[41] where we emphasized the importance of complying with the required procedures under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.

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. 188328

2010-08-25

PEOPLE v. JOSELITO NASARA Y DAHAY

CARPIO MORALES, J.

People v. Dela Cruz[9] enlightens: As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered in evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

GR No. 179029

2010-08-09

PEOPLE v. FELIMON PAGADUAN Y TAMAYO

BRION, J.

We had the same rulings in People v. Gutierrez,[34] People v. Denoman,[35] People v. Partoza,[36] People v. Robles,[37] and People v. dela Cruz,[38] where we emphasized the importance of complying with the required mandatory procedures under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.

GR No. 186498

2010-03-26

PEOPLE v. RONALDO DE GUZMAN Y DANZIL

NACHURA, J.

The identity of the prohibited drug must be established with moral certainty. Apart from showing that the elements of possession or sale are present, the fact that the substance illegally possessed and sold in the first place is the same substance offered in court as exhibit must likewise be established with the same degree of certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty verdict.[25] The corpus delicti should be identified with unwavering exactitude.[26]

GR No. 171732

2009-08-14

PEOPLE v. EDGAR DENOMAN Y ACURDA

BRION, J.

In People v. Sanchez,[30] we declared that in a warrantless seizure (such as in a buy-bust operation) under RA No. 9165, the physical inventory and photograph of the items can be made by the buy-bust team, if practicable, at the place of seizure considering that such interpretation is more in keeping with the law's intent of preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs.[31]

GR No. 177164

2009-06-30

PEOPLE v. RAMON FRONDOZO Y DALIDA

QUISUMBING, J.

What is material in the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[32] Prosecutions for illegal sale of prohibited drugs necessitate that the elemental act of possession of prohibited substance be established with moral certainty, together with the fact that the same is not authorized by law. The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction. Therefore, it is essential that the identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond doubt.[33]

GR No. 182418

2009-05-08

PEOPLE

TINGA, J.

In order to successfully prosecute an accused for illegal sale of drugs, the prosecution must be able to prove the following elements: (1) identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[17] What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale or had actually taken place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[18]

GR No. 177220

2009-04-24

PEOPLE v. RUBEN ROBLES Y NOVILINIO

CARPIO MORALES, J.

A unique characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are not readily identifiable as in fact they are subject to scientific analysis to determine their composition and nature. The Court cannot close its eyes to the likelihood, or at least the possibility, that at any of the links in the chain of custody over the same there could have been tampering, alteration or substitution of substances from other cases -- by accident or otherwise -- in which similar evidence was seized or in which similar evidence was submitted for laboratory testing.[20] Thus, the corpus delicti should be identified with unwavering exactitude.[21]

GR No. 173480

2009-02-25

PEOPLE v. RUIZ GARCIA Y RUIZ

BRION, J.

We reached the same conclusion in People v. Nazareno[27] and People v. Santos, Jr.,[28] and recently, in the cases of People v. Dela Cruz[29] and People v. De la Cruz[30] where we again stressed the importance of complying with the prescribed procedure. We also held that strict compliance is justified under the rule that penal laws shall be construed strictly against the government, and liberally in favor of the accused.[31]

	GR No. 201845 2013-03-06	PEOPLE v. EDGARDO ADRID Y FLORES VELASCO JR., J.
The CA, thus, gravely erred in ruling that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated prohibited drug were properly preserved.[47] On the contrary, the prosecution failed to provide each and every link in the chain of custody. This runs contrary to the rule that the corpus delicti should be identified with unwavering exactitude.[48]
	GR No. 191062 2012-09-19	PEOPLE v. MOHAMAD ANGKOB Y MLANG PEREZ, J.
(1) the identities 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.[22]
	GR No. 185715 2011-01-19	PEOPLE v. ERLINDA CAPUNO Y TISON BRION, J.
We had the same rulings in People v. Gutierrez,[37] People v. Denoman,[38] People v. Partoza,[39] People v. Robles,[40] and People v. dela Cruz,[41] where we emphasized the importance of complying with the required procedures under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.
	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. 188328 2010-08-25	PEOPLE v. JOSELITO NASARA Y DAHAY CARPIO MORALES, J.
People v. Dela Cruz[9] enlightens: As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered in evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
	GR No. 179029 2010-08-09	PEOPLE v. FELIMON PAGADUAN Y TAMAYO BRION, J.
We had the same rulings in People v. Gutierrez,[34] People v. Denoman,[35] People v. Partoza,[36] People v. Robles,[37] and People v. dela Cruz,[38] where we emphasized the importance of complying with the required mandatory procedures under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.
	GR No. 186498 2010-03-26	PEOPLE v. RONALDO DE GUZMAN Y DANZIL NACHURA, J.
The identity of the prohibited drug must be established with moral certainty. Apart from showing that the elements of possession or sale are present, the fact that the substance illegally possessed and sold in the first place is the same substance offered in court as exhibit must likewise be established with the same degree of certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty verdict.[25] The corpus delicti should be identified with unwavering exactitude.[26]
	GR No. 171732 2009-08-14	PEOPLE v. EDGAR DENOMAN Y ACURDA BRION, J.
In People v. Sanchez,[30] we declared that in a warrantless seizure (such as in a buy-bust operation) under RA No. 9165, the physical inventory and photograph of the items can be made by the buy-bust team, if practicable, at the place of seizure considering that such interpretation is more in keeping with the law's intent of preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs.[31]
	GR No. 177164 2009-06-30	PEOPLE v. RAMON FRONDOZO Y DALIDA QUISUMBING, J.
What is material in the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[32] Prosecutions for illegal sale of prohibited drugs necessitate that the elemental act of possession of prohibited substance be established with moral certainty, together with the fact that the same is not authorized by law. The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction. Therefore, it is essential that the identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond doubt.[33]
	GR No. 182418 2009-05-08	PEOPLE TINGA, J.
In order to successfully prosecute an accused for illegal sale of drugs, the prosecution must be able to prove the following elements: (1) identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[17] What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale or had actually taken place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[18]
	GR No. 177220 2009-04-24	PEOPLE v. RUBEN ROBLES Y NOVILINIO CARPIO MORALES, J.
A unique characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are not readily identifiable as in fact they are subject to scientific analysis to determine their composition and nature. The Court cannot close its eyes to the likelihood, or at least the possibility, that at any of the links in the chain of custody over the same there could have been tampering, alteration or substitution of substances from other cases -- by accident or otherwise -- in which similar evidence was seized or in which similar evidence was submitted for laboratory testing.[20] Thus, the corpus delicti should be identified with unwavering exactitude.[21]
	GR No. 173480 2009-02-25	PEOPLE v. RUIZ GARCIA Y RUIZ BRION, J.
We reached the same conclusion in People v. Nazareno[27] and People v. Santos, Jr.,[28] and recently, in the cases of People v. Dela Cruz[29] and People v. De la Cruz[30] where we again stressed the importance of complying with the prescribed procedure. We also held that strict compliance is justified under the rule that penal laws shall be construed strictly against the government, and liberally in favor of the accused.[31]

PEOPLE v. MARK DELA CRUZ