This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-10-19 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Various reasons exist why failure to establish the chain of custody in a narcotics case, such as the case at bar, is fatal to the prosecution's case. As the Court exhaustively explained in Carino v. People, [39] | |||||
|
2009-09-29 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In this case, PO2 Atienza himself testified that he confiscated the prohibited drug and brought it to his office. He then prepared the request and only then―in the office―did he place his initials "APA" on the plastic sachet. The prosecution also failed to establish that petitioner was present when PO2 Atienza marked the said plastic sachet. These shortcomings militate against the prosecution's case. In the similar case of Ronald Carino and Rosana Andes v. People of the Philippines,[23] this Court emphasized the requirement of law that the prohibited drug seized be marked in the presence of the accused. Such flaw not only casts doubt on the identity of the corpus delicti but also tends to negate, if not totally discredit, the claim of regularity in the conduct of official police operation. | |||||
|
2009-05-08 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| In Mallillin v. People,[40] People v. Obmiranis[41] and People v. Garcia[42] and Carino v. People[43] we declared that the failure of the prosecution to offer the testimony of key witnesses to establish a sufficiently complete chain of custody of a specimen of shabu, and the irregularity which characterized the handling of the evidence before the same was finally offered in court, fatally conflict with every proposition relative to the culpability of the accused. It is this same reason that now moves us to reverse the judgment of conviction in the present case. | |||||