Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	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. 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. 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. 178202 2010-05-14	PEOPLE v. NORMAN SITCO VELASCO JR., J.
As in People v. Partoza,[33] this case suffers from the failure of the prosecution witness to provide the details establishing an unbroken chain of custody. In Partoza, the police officer testifying did not relate to whom the custody of the drugs was turned over. The evidence of the prosecution likewise did not disclose the identity of the person who had the custody and safekeeping of the drugs after its examination and pending presentation in court.
	GR No. 186390 2009-10-02	PEOPLE v. ROSEMARIE R. SALONGA VELASCO JR., J.
We see here a situation similar to People v. Partoza,[17] which dealt with a police officer who failed to observe Sec. 21 of RA 9165: PO3 Tougan did not mark the seized drugs immediately after he arrested appellant in the latter's presence. Neither did he make an inventory and take a photograph of the confiscated items in the presence of appellant. There was no representative from the media and the Department of Justice, or any elected public official who participated in the operation and who were supposed to sign an inventory of seized items and be given copies thereof. None of these statutory safeguards were observed.