Lawyerly

GR No. 190621

2014-02-10

DEL CASTILLO, J.

The failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical inventory and photographed the objects confiscated does not ipso facto result in the unlawful arrest of the accused or render inadmissible in evidence the items seized. This is due to the proviso added in the implementing rules stating that it must still be shown that there exists justifiable grounds and proof that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence have not been preserved.[32] "What is crucial is that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved for they will be used in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused."[33]

GR No. 201156

2014-01-29

PEOPLE v. JOSELITO MORATE Y TARNATE

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

As to the failure to photograph the inventory of the seized items, such omission on the part of the police officers is not fatal to the case against the accused-appellant. This Court has ruled in various cases, such as People v. Almodiel,[38] People v. Rosialda,[39] People v. Llamado,[40] and People v. Rivera,[41] that the failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated is not fatal and does not automatically render the arrest of the accused illegal or the items seized from him inadmissible.[42] As has been said earlier, the prosecution has sufficiently shown that the identity and evidentiary integrity of the seized items were properly preserved, and that is not materially affected by the prosecution's failure to take a photograph of the seized items.

GR No. 184606

2012-09-05

PEOPLE OF TILE PHILIPPINES v. CALEXTO DUQUE FUN DALES

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Thus, it is of no moment that Forensic Chemical Officer Mangalip was not presented as witness. The non-presentation as witnesses of other persons who had custody of the illegal drugs is not a crucial point against the prosecution.[32] "It is the prosecution which has the discretion as to how to present its case and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses."[33] What is important is that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs are properly preserved as it had been so in this case.

GR No. 200951

2012-09-05

PEOPLE v. JOSE ALMODIEL

CARPIO, J.

The Implementing Rules of RA 9165 offer some flexibility when a proviso added that "non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items."[35] In People v. Rosialda,[36] People v. Llamado,[37] and People v. Rivera,[38] the Court had the occasion to apply such flexibility when it ruled that the failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated is not fatal and does not automatically render the arrest of the accused illegal or the items seized from him inadmissible.

GR No. 182525

2011-03-02

PEOPLE v. BERTHA PRESAS Y TOLENTINO

PEREZ, J.

The failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated pursuant to said guidelines, does not automatically render accused's arrest illegal or the items seized from him inadmissible. A proviso was added in the implementing rules that "non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items." The same provision also states that it must still be shown that there exists justifiable grounds and proof that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence have been preserved.[20]

GR No. 191394

2010-10-18

PEOPLE v. MARIA POLITICO Y TICALA

VELASCO JR., J.

In a successful prosecution for offenses involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165, the following elements must concur: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it.[12] Such elements are present in this case. What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug or the corpus delicti as evidence.[13]

GR No. 188330

2010-08-25

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO J. ROSIALDA

VELASCO JR., J.

The Court made the following enlightening disquisition on this matter in People v. Rivera:[13]

GR No. 185848

2010-08-16

PEOPLE v. MICHAEL SEMBRANO Y CASTRO

PEREZ, J.

Conviction is proper in prosecutions involving illegal sale of regulated or prohibited drugs if the following elements are present: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereto.[10] What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug.[11] We reiterate the meaning of the term corpus delicti which is the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged.[12]

GR No. 186466

2010-07-26

PEOPLE v. CHRISTOPHER DESUYO Y BUEN

PEREZ, J.

To recall the principles, conviction is proper in prosecutions involving illegal sale of regulated or prohibited drugs if the following elements are present: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[12] What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug.[13] We reiterate the meaning of the term corpus delicti which is the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged.[14]

GR No. 186139

2009-10-05

PEOPLE v. LEONARDO RUSIANA Y BROQUEL

VELASCO JR., J.

The presentation of PO2 Dalagdagan to establish the identity of the drugs seized is no longer necessary, as it was even stipulated during pre-trial that the existence of the Investigation Report (Exhibit "B") which he prepared was admitted by accused-appellant.[16] During trial, it was also stipulated by the parties that PO2 Dalagdagan's testimony would be in accordance with said Investigation Report.[17] While the presentation of the testimonies of all those who handled the illegal drugs would be ideal, one of the custodians or links in the chain was not presented by agreement of the parties in the case at bar. The prosecution cannot be faulted for its presentation of evidence as it was willing to present PO2 Dalagdagan. People v. Rivera[18] is particularly instructive in this respect: The non-presentation as witnesses of other persons such as the other police officers forming a buy-bust team is not a crucial point against the prosecution since the matter of presentation of witnesses by the prosecution is not for the court to decide. It is the prosecution which has the discretion as to how to present its case and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses. Moreover, the testimony of a single prosecution witness, if credible and positive and satisfies the court as to the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, is enough to sustain a conviction.

	GR No. 190621 2014-02-10	PEOPLE v. GLENN SALVADOR Y BALVERDE DEL CASTILLO, J.
The failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical inventory and photographed the objects confiscated does not ipso facto result in the unlawful arrest of the accused or render inadmissible in evidence the items seized. This is due to the proviso added in the implementing rules stating that it must still be shown that there exists justifiable grounds and proof that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence have not been preserved.[32] "What is crucial is that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved for they will be used in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused."[33]
	GR No. 201156 2014-01-29	PEOPLE v. JOSELITO MORATE Y TARNATE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
As to the failure to photograph the inventory of the seized items, such omission on the part of the police officers is not fatal to the case against the accused-appellant. This Court has ruled in various cases, such as People v. Almodiel,[38] People v. Rosialda,[39] People v. Llamado,[40] and People v. Rivera,[41] that the failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated is not fatal and does not automatically render the arrest of the accused illegal or the items seized from him inadmissible.[42] As has been said earlier, the prosecution has sufficiently shown that the identity and evidentiary integrity of the seized items were properly preserved, and that is not materially affected by the prosecution's failure to take a photograph of the seized items.
	GR No. 184606 2012-09-05	PEOPLE OF TILE PHILIPPINES v. CALEXTO DUQUE FUN DALES DEL CASTILLO, J.
Thus, it is of no moment that Forensic Chemical Officer Mangalip was not presented as witness. The non-presentation as witnesses of other persons who had custody of the illegal drugs is not a crucial point against the prosecution.[32] "It is the prosecution which has the discretion as to how to present its case and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses."[33] What is important is that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs are properly preserved as it had been so in this case.
	GR No. 200951 2012-09-05	PEOPLE v. JOSE ALMODIEL CARPIO, J.
The Implementing Rules of RA 9165 offer some flexibility when a proviso added that "non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items."[35] In People v. Rosialda,[36] People v. Llamado,[37] and People v. Rivera,[38] the Court had the occasion to apply such flexibility when it ruled that the failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated is not fatal and does not automatically render the arrest of the accused illegal or the items seized from him inadmissible.
	GR No. 182525 2011-03-02	PEOPLE v. BERTHA PRESAS Y TOLENTINO PEREZ, J.
The failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated pursuant to said guidelines, does not automatically render accused's arrest illegal or the items seized from him inadmissible. A proviso was added in the implementing rules that "non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items." The same provision also states that it must still be shown that there exists justifiable grounds and proof that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence have been preserved.[20]
	GR No. 191394 2010-10-18	PEOPLE v. MARIA POLITICO Y TICALA VELASCO JR., J.
In a successful prosecution for offenses involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165, the following elements must concur: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it.[12] Such elements are present in this case. What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug or the corpus delicti as evidence.[13]
	GR No. 188330 2010-08-25	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO J. ROSIALDA VELASCO JR., J.
The Court made the following enlightening disquisition on this matter in People v. Rivera:[13]
	GR No. 185848 2010-08-16	PEOPLE v. MICHAEL SEMBRANO Y CASTRO PEREZ, J.
Conviction is proper in prosecutions involving illegal sale of regulated or prohibited drugs if the following elements are present: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereto.[10] What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug.[11] We reiterate the meaning of the term corpus delicti which is the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged.[12]
	GR No. 186466 2010-07-26	PEOPLE v. CHRISTOPHER DESUYO Y BUEN PEREZ, J.
To recall the principles, conviction is proper in prosecutions involving illegal sale of regulated or prohibited drugs if the following elements are present: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[12] What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug.[13] We reiterate the meaning of the term corpus delicti which is the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged.[14]
	GR No. 186139 2009-10-05	PEOPLE v. LEONARDO RUSIANA Y BROQUEL VELASCO JR., J.
The presentation of PO2 Dalagdagan to establish the identity of the drugs seized is no longer necessary, as it was even stipulated during pre-trial that the existence of the Investigation Report (Exhibit "B") which he prepared was admitted by accused-appellant.[16] During trial, it was also stipulated by the parties that PO2 Dalagdagan's testimony would be in accordance with said Investigation Report.[17] While the presentation of the testimonies of all those who handled the illegal drugs would be ideal, one of the custodians or links in the chain was not presented by agreement of the parties in the case at bar. The prosecution cannot be faulted for its presentation of evidence as it was willing to present PO2 Dalagdagan. People v. Rivera[18] is particularly instructive in this respect: The non-presentation as witnesses of other persons such as the other police officers forming a buy-bust team is not a crucial point against the prosecution since the matter of presentation of witnesses by the prosecution is not for the court to decide. It is the prosecution which has the discretion as to how to present its case and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses. Moreover, the testimony of a single prosecution witness, if credible and positive and satisfies the court as to the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, is enough to sustain a conviction.

PEOPLE v. EMILIO RIVERA Y CABLANG