This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2012-04-25 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| We have reiterated that "this saving clause applies only where the prosecution recognized the procedural lapses, and thereafter explained the cited justifiable grounds" after which, "the prosecution must show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized have been preserved."[11] To repeat, noncompliance with the required procedure will not necessarily result in the acquittal of the accused if: (1) the noncompliance is on justifiable grounds; and (2) the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team.[12] | |||||
|
2011-11-16 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Jurisprudence has firmly entrenched that in the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following essential elements must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified.[17] Implicit in all these is the need for proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the confiscated prohibited or regulated drug as evidence. | |||||
|
2011-07-13 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Jurisprudence has firmly entrenched that in prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following essential elements must be established: (1) the transaction or sale took place; (2) the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) the buyer and seller were identified. [15] Implicit in all these is the need for proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the confiscated prohibited or regulated drug as evidence. | |||||
|
2010-12-13 |
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] | |||||
|
2010-01-19 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The consequences of the above omissions must necessarily be grave for the prosecution under the rule that penal laws, such as RA 9165, are strictly construed against the government and liberally in favor of the accused.[22] One consequence is to produce doubts on the origins of the illegal drug presented in court,[23] thus leading to the prosecution's failure to establish the corpus delicti.[24] Unless excused by the saving mechanism, the acquittal of the accused must follow. | |||||
|
2009-08-14 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of RA No. 9165 and Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA No. 9165 give us the procedures that the apprehending team should observe in the handling of seized illegal drugs in order to preserve their identity and integrity as evidence. As indicated by their mandatory terms, strict compliance with the prescribed procedure is essential and the prosecution must show compliance in every case.[27] Parenthetically, in People v. De la Cruz,[28] we justified the need for strict compliance with the prescribed procedures to be consistent with the principle that penal laws shall be construed strictly against the government and liberally in favor of the accused. | |||||
|
2009-05-08 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| In People v. Obmiranis,[20] appellant was acquitted due to the flaws in the conduct of the post-seizure custody of the dangerous drug allegedly recovered from appellant, taken together with the failure of the key persons who handled the same to testify on the whereabouts of the exhibit before it was offered in evidence in court.[21] In Bondad v. People,[22] this Court held that the failure to comply with the requirements of the law compromised the identity of the items seized, which is the corpus delicti of each of the crimes charged against appellant, hence his acquittal is in order.[23] And in People v. De la Cruz,[24] the apprehending team's omission to observe the procedure outlined by R.A. No. 9165 in the custody and disposition of the seized drugs significantly impairs the prosecution's case.[25] | |||||
|
2009-04-24 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The Constitution mandates that an accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The burden lies on the prosecution to overcome such presumption of innocence by presenting the quantum of evidence required. In so doing, the prosecution must rest on its own merits and must not rely on the weakness of the defense. And if the prosecution fails to meet the required amount of evidence, the defense may logically not even present evidence on its own behalf. In which case the presumption prevails and the accused should necessarily be acquitted.[9] | |||||
|
2009-02-25 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Q: What happened after you have seized the item from the accused or after you have recovered this and placing [sic] markings? A: It was sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory for laboratory examination.[23] Thus, other than the markings made by PO1 Garcia and the police investigator (whose identity was not disclosed), no physical inventory was ever made, and no photograph of the seized items was taken under the circumstances required by R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rules. We observe that while there was testimony with respect to the marking of the seized items at the police station, no mention whatsoever was made on whether the marking had been done in the presence of Ruiz or his representatives.[24] There was likewise no mention that any representative from the media and the Department of Justice, or any elected official had been present during this inventory, or that any of these people had been required to sign the copies of the inventory.[25] | |||||