Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ELPIDIO BONDAD v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 179029 2010-08-09	PEOPLE v. FELIMON PAGADUAN Y TAMAYO BRION, J.
In several cases, we have emphasized the importance of compliance with the prescribed procedure in the custody and disposition of the seized drugs. We have repeatedly declared that the deviation from the standard procedure dismally compromises the integrity of the evidence. In People v. Morales,[31] we acquitted the accused for failure of the buy-bust team to photograph and inventory the seized items, without giving any justifiable ground for the non-observance of the required procedures. People v. Garcia[32] likewise resulted in an acquittal because 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. In Bondad, Jr. v. People,[33] we also acquitted the accused for the failure of the police to conduct an inventory and to photograph the seized items, without justifiable grounds.
	GR No. 184760 2010-04-23	PEOPLE v. PATERNO LORENZO Y CASAS PEREZ, J.
In Bondad, Jr. v. People,[13] where the prosecution did not inventory and photograph the confiscated evidence, this Court acquitted therein accused reasoning that failure to comply with the aforesaid requirements of the law compromised the identity of the items seized.
	GR No. 182418 2009-05-08	PEOPLE 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]