Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. DANILO SIMBAHON Y QUIATZON

This case has been cited 10 times or more.

	GR No. 181831 2010-03-29	PEOPLE v. RODNIE ALMORFE Y SEDENTE CARPIO MORALES, J.
The presentation of the drugs which constitute the corpus delicti of the offenses,[17] calls for the necessity of proving beyond doubt that they are the same seized objects. This function is performed by the "chain of custody" requirement as defined in Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002,[18] which requirement is necessary to erase all doubts as to the identity of the seized drugs by establishing its movement from the accused, to the police, to the forensic chemist, and finally to the court.[19]
	GR No. 182790 2009-04-24	PEOPLE v. CESAR CANTALEJO Y MANLANGIT TINGA, J.
In prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following 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.[10] The dangerous drug is the very corpus delicti of the offense.[11]
	GR No. 178757 2009-03-13	RONALD CARINO v. PEOPLE TINGA, J.
To begin with, prosecutions for illegal possession of prohibited drugs necessitates that the elemental act of possession of a 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.[36] In these cases, it is therefore essential that the identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond doubt.[37]
	GR No. 177222 2008-10-29	PEOPLE v. RANILO DE LA CRUZ Y LIZING TINGA, J.
In prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following 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.[26] The dangerous drug is the very corpus delicti of the offense.[27]
	GR No. 177222 2008-10-29	PEOPLE v. RANILO DE LA CRUZ Y LIZING TINGA, J.
Failing to prove entitlement to the application of the proviso, the arresting officers' non-compliance with the procedure laid down by R.A No. 9156 is not excused. This inexcusable non-compliance effectively invalidates their seizure of and custody over the seized drugs, thus, compromising the identity and integrity of the same. We resolve the doubt in the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti in favor of appellant[32] as every fact necessary to constitute the crime must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt.[33] Considering that the prosecution failed to present the required quantum of evidence, appellant's acquittal is in order.
	GR No. 172953 2008-04-30	JUNIE MALLILLIN Y. LOPEZ v. PEOPLE TINGA, J,
Prosecutions for illegal possession of prohibited drugs necessitates that the elemental act of possession of a 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.[33] Essential therefore in these cases is that the identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond doubt.[34] Be that as it may, the mere fact of unauthorized possession will not suffice to create in a reasonable mind the moral certainty required to sustain a finding of guilt. More than just the fact of possession, the fact that the substance illegally possessed in the first place is the same substance offered in court as exhibit must also 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.[35]
	GR No. 172953 2008-04-30	JUNIE MALLILLIN Y. LOPEZ v. PEOPLE TINGA, J,
Prosecutions for illegal possession of prohibited drugs necessitates that the elemental act of possession of a 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.[33] Essential therefore in these cases is that the identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond doubt.[34] Be that as it may, the mere fact of unauthorized possession will not suffice to create in a reasonable mind the moral certainty required to sustain a finding of guilt. More than just the fact of possession, the fact that the substance illegally possessed in the first place is the same substance offered in court as exhibit must also 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.[35]
	GR Nos. 146107-09 2003-12-11	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO ALMEIDA Y CALVIN AZCUNA, J.
The existence of the dangerous drug is a condition sine qua non for conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, it being the very corpus delicti of the crime.[14] Failure to establish the chain of custody cannot but inure to the detriment of the prosecution's case.[15]
	GR No. 144639 2003-09-12	PEOPLE v. BENNY GO CARPIO MORALES, J.
In all prosecutions for violation of The Dangerous Drugs Act, the existence of the dangerous drug is a condition sine qua non for conviction since the dangerous drug is the very corpus delicti of the crime.[106] With the exclusion of Exhibit "A," the plastic bag containing the shabu allegedly recovered from appellant's residence by the raiding team, the decision of the trial court must necessarily be reversed and appellant acquitted.