Lawyerly

GR No. 203028

2014-01-15

REYES, J.

In People v. Morales,[32] we acquitted the accused due to the failure of the buy-bust team to photograph and inventory the seized items or to give justifiable grounds for their non-observance of the required procedures. In People v. Garcia,[33] the accused was acquitted 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."[34] We issued the same ruling in Bondad, Jr. v. People,[35] where the police without justifiable grounds did not inventory or photograph the seized items. We reiterated the same ruling in People v. Gutierrez,[36] People v. Denoman,[37] People v. Partoza,[38] People v. Robles,[39] and People v. dela Cruz.[40] In all these cases, we stressed the importance of complying with the required mandatory procedures in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 concerning the preservation of the chain of custody of confiscated drugs in a buy-bust operation.

GR No. 194948

2013-09-02

PEOPLE v. FREDDY SALONGA Y AFIADO

SERENO, C.J.

Simply put, the prosecution must establish that the illegal sale of the dangerous drugs actually took place together with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the dangerous drugs seized in evidence.[27] Central to this requirement is the question of whether the drug submitted for laboratory examination and presented in court was actually recovered from the accused.[28]

GR No. 186467

2011-07-13

PEOPLE v. JAIME GATLABAYAN Y BATARA

MENDOZA, J.

As a general rule, the trial court's findings of fact, especially when affirmed by the CA, are entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal. The rule, however, admits of exceptions and does not apply where facts of weight and substance with direct and material bearing on the final outcome of the case have been overlooked, misapprehended or misplaced. [14] The case at bench falls under the above exception and, hence, a departure from the general rule is warranted.

GR No. 185717

2011-06-08

PEOPLE v. GARRY DE LA CRUZ Y DELA CRUZ

VELASCO JR., J.

Although the trial court's findings of fact are entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal, this rule does not apply where facts of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied in a case under appeal,[17] as here.

GR No. 192188

2011-04-11

PEOPLE v. ANDREW ROBLE

VELASCO JR., J.

Even more doubtful is the identity and integrity of the dangerous drug itself. In prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, "[t]he existence of dangerous drugs is a condition sine qua non for conviction x x x."[38] Thus, it must be established that the substance bought during the buy-bust operation is the same substance offered in court. The chain of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[39]

GR No. 185715

2011-01-19

PEOPLE v. ERLINDA CAPUNO Y TISON

BRION, J.

We had the same rulings in People v. Gutierrez,[37] People v. Denoman,[38] People v. Partoza,[39] People v. Robles,[40] and People v. dela Cruz,[41] where we emphasized the importance of complying with the required procedures under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.

GR No. 189844

2010-11-15

PEOPLE v. MARIO VILLANUEVA BAGA

VELASCO JR., J.

Moreover, the existence of dangerous drugs is a condition sine qua non for conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, it being the very corpus delicti of the crime.[12] In fact, the existence of the dangerous drug is essential to a judgment of conviction. It is, therefore, essential that the identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond doubt. Even more than this, what must also be established is the fact that the substance bought during the buy-bust operation is the same substance offered in court as exhibit. The chain of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[13]

GR No. 179029

2010-08-09

PEOPLE v. FELIMON PAGADUAN Y TAMAYO

BRION, J.

We had the same rulings in People v. Gutierrez,[34] People v. Denoman,[35] People v. Partoza,[36] People v. Robles,[37] and People v. dela Cruz,[38] where we emphasized the importance of complying with the required mandatory procedures under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.

GR No. 188905

2010-07-13

PEOPLE v. ROSE NANDI Y SALI

MENDOZA, J.

Strict compliance with the prescribed procedure is necessary because of the illegal drug's unique characteristic rendering it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise.[7]

GR No. 172873

2010-03-19

PEOPLE v. ROLDAN MORALES Y MIDARASA

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Prevailing jurisprudence uniformly hold that the trial court's findings of fact, especially when affirmed by the CA, are, as a general rule, entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal.[62] However, this rule admits of exceptions and does not apply where facts of weight and substance with direct and material bearing on the final outcome of the case have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied.[63] After due consideration of the records of this case, evidence presented and relevant law and jurisprudence, we hold that this case falls under the exception.

GR No. 174198

2010-01-19

PEOPLE v. ZAIDA KAMAD Y AMBING

BRION, J.

As a general rule, the trial court's findings of fact, especially when affirmed by the CA, are entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal. This rule, however, admits of exceptions and does not apply where facts of weight and substance with direct and material bearing on the final outcome of the case have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied.[16] After due consideration of the records of this case, the evidence adduced, and the applicable law and jurisprudence, we hold that a deviation from the general rule is warranted.

GR No. 186390

2009-10-02

PEOPLE v. ROSEMARIE R. SALONGA

VELASCO JR., J.

While a lone witness' testimony is sufficient to convict an accused, it must be credible and believable, qualities we cannot ascribe to this case. Major lapses were not explained, raising doubts as to the preservation of the integrity of the evidence. The varying reasons the prosecution proffered as to why there was a departure from the procedure found in RA 9165 do not, to our mind, justify the buy-bust team's non-compliance. We are not ready to affirm a conviction in the face of such flimsy and contradictory excuses for why the evidence was improperly handled. As this Court recently observed in People v. Robles,[18] the failure of the police to comply with the procedure in the custody of seized drugs raises doubt as to their origins, and negates the operation of the presumption of regularity accorded to police officers.

	GR No. 203028 2014-01-15	PEOPLE v. JOSELITO BERAN Y ZAPANTA REYES, J.
In People v. Morales,[32] we acquitted the accused due to the failure of the buy-bust team to photograph and inventory the seized items or to give justifiable grounds for their non-observance of the required procedures. In People v. Garcia,[33] the accused was acquitted 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."[34] We issued the same ruling in Bondad, Jr. v. People,[35] where the police without justifiable grounds did not inventory or photograph the seized items. We reiterated the same ruling in People v. Gutierrez,[36] People v. Denoman,[37] People v. Partoza,[38] People v. Robles,[39] and People v. dela Cruz.[40] In all these cases, we stressed the importance of complying with the required mandatory procedures in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 concerning the preservation of the chain of custody of confiscated drugs in a buy-bust operation.
	GR No. 194948 2013-09-02	PEOPLE v. FREDDY SALONGA Y AFIADO SERENO, C.J.
Simply put, the prosecution must establish that the illegal sale of the dangerous drugs actually took place together with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the dangerous drugs seized in evidence.[27] Central to this requirement is the question of whether the drug submitted for laboratory examination and presented in court was actually recovered from the accused.[28]
	GR No. 186467 2011-07-13	PEOPLE v. JAIME GATLABAYAN Y BATARA MENDOZA, J.
As a general rule, the trial court's findings of fact, especially when affirmed by the CA, are entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal. The rule, however, admits of exceptions and does not apply where facts of weight and substance with direct and material bearing on the final outcome of the case have been overlooked, misapprehended or misplaced. [14] The case at bench falls under the above exception and, hence, a departure from the general rule is warranted.
	GR No. 185717 2011-06-08	PEOPLE v. GARRY DE LA CRUZ Y DELA CRUZ VELASCO JR., J.
Although the trial court's findings of fact are entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal, this rule does not apply where facts of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied in a case under appeal,[17] as here.
	GR No. 192188 2011-04-11	PEOPLE v. ANDREW ROBLE VELASCO JR., J.
Even more doubtful is the identity and integrity of the dangerous drug itself. In prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, "[t]he existence of dangerous drugs is a condition sine qua non for conviction x x x."[38] Thus, it must be established that the substance bought during the buy-bust operation is the same substance offered in court. The chain of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[39]
	GR No. 185715 2011-01-19	PEOPLE v. ERLINDA CAPUNO Y TISON BRION, J.
We had the same rulings in People v. Gutierrez,[37] People v. Denoman,[38] People v. Partoza,[39] People v. Robles,[40] and People v. dela Cruz,[41] where we emphasized the importance of complying with the required procedures under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.
	GR No. 189844 2010-11-15	PEOPLE v. MARIO VILLANUEVA BAGA VELASCO JR., J.
Moreover, the existence of dangerous drugs is a condition sine qua non for conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, it being the very corpus delicti of the crime.[12] In fact, the existence of the dangerous drug is essential to a judgment of conviction. It is, therefore, essential that the identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond doubt. Even more than this, what must also be established is the fact that the substance bought during the buy-bust operation is the same substance offered in court as exhibit. The chain of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[13]
	GR No. 179029 2010-08-09	PEOPLE v. FELIMON PAGADUAN Y TAMAYO BRION, J.
We had the same rulings in People v. Gutierrez,[34] People v. Denoman,[35] People v. Partoza,[36] People v. Robles,[37] and People v. dela Cruz,[38] where we emphasized the importance of complying with the required mandatory procedures under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.
	GR No. 188905 2010-07-13	PEOPLE v. ROSE NANDI Y SALI MENDOZA, J.
Strict compliance with the prescribed procedure is necessary because of the illegal drug's unique characteristic rendering it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise.[7]
	GR No. 172873 2010-03-19	PEOPLE v. ROLDAN MORALES Y MIDARASA DEL CASTILLO, J.
Prevailing jurisprudence uniformly hold that the trial court's findings of fact, especially when affirmed by the CA, are, as a general rule, entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal.[62] However, this rule admits of exceptions and does not apply where facts of weight and substance with direct and material bearing on the final outcome of the case have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied.[63] After due consideration of the records of this case, evidence presented and relevant law and jurisprudence, we hold that this case falls under the exception.
	GR No. 174198 2010-01-19	PEOPLE v. ZAIDA KAMAD Y AMBING BRION, J.
As a general rule, the trial court's findings of fact, especially when affirmed by the CA, are entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal. This rule, however, admits of exceptions and does not apply where facts of weight and substance with direct and material bearing on the final outcome of the case have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied.[16] After due consideration of the records of this case, the evidence adduced, and the applicable law and jurisprudence, we hold that a deviation from the general rule is warranted.
	GR No. 186390 2009-10-02	PEOPLE v. ROSEMARIE R. SALONGA VELASCO JR., J.
While a lone witness' testimony is sufficient to convict an accused, it must be credible and believable, qualities we cannot ascribe to this case. Major lapses were not explained, raising doubts as to the preservation of the integrity of the evidence. The varying reasons the prosecution proffered as to why there was a departure from the procedure found in RA 9165 do not, to our mind, justify the buy-bust team's non-compliance. We are not ready to affirm a conviction in the face of such flimsy and contradictory excuses for why the evidence was improperly handled. As this Court recently observed in People v. Robles,[18] the failure of the police to comply with the procedure in the custody of seized drugs raises doubt as to their origins, and negates the operation of the presumption of regularity accorded to police officers.

PEOPLE v. RUBEN ROBLES Y NOVILINIO