Lawyerly

GR No. 198450

2016-01-11

DEL CASTILLO, J.

"In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be duly established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place; and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence."[19] The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence beyond reasonable doubt plus the fact of its delivery and/or sale are both vital and essential to a judgment of conviction in a criminal case.[20] And more than just the fact of sale, "[o]f prime importance therefore x x x is that the identity of the dangerous drug be likewise established beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, it must be established with unwavering exactitude that the dangerous drug presented in court as evidence against the accused is the same as that seized from him in the first place. The chain of custody requirement performs this function in that in ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed."[21]

GR No. 209785

2014-06-04

PEOPLE v. MARLON ABETONG Y ENDRADO

VELASCO JR., J.

A unique characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are not readily identifiable as in fact they are subject to scientific analysis to determine their composition and nature. And the risk of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an exhibit of this nature is greatest when the exhibit is small and is one that has physical characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form to substances familiar to people in their daily lives. As a reasonable measure, in authenticating narcotic specimens, a standard more stringent than that applied to cases involving objects which are readily identifiable must be applied a more exacting standard that entails a chain of custody of the item with sufficient completeness if only to render it improbable that the original item has either been exchanged with another or been contaminated or tampered with.[7]

GR No. 198051

2012-12-10

PEOPLE v. WILLIAM DUMAPLIN Y CAHOY

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

The prosecution must prove the requisite chain of custody of the seized specimen. "Chain of custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.[24] The prosecution must offer the testimony of key witnesses to establish a sufficiently complete chain of custody.[25] In this case, the trial court and the RTC concluded that the chain of custody of the confiscated shabu specimen was unbroken. However, the records belie such conclusion as it was not satisfactorily explained how the drugs were handled from the time the police officers allegedly seized them from appellant to the time they were presented in court as evidence.

GR No. 180177

2012-04-18

ROGELIO S. REYES v. CA

BERSAMIN, J.

Cogently, Mallilin v. People is reiterated in Catuiran v. People,[38] People v. Garcia,[39] and People v. Villanueva,[40] among others.

GR No. 192261

2011-11-16

PEOPLE v. GARET SALCENA Y VICTORINO

MENDOZA, J.

In view of the loopholes in the prosecution evidence as well as the gaps in the chain of custody, there is no assurance that the identity and integrity of the subject narcotic substance has not been compromised. In Catuiran v. People,[46] the Court held 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 conflicted with every proposition relative to the culpability of the accused.

GR No. 186467

2011-07-13

PEOPLE v. JAIME GATLABAYAN Y BATARA

MENDOZA, J.

In view of the foregoing loopholes in the evidence adduced against the accused as well as the gaps in the chain of custody, it can be reasonably concluded that the prosecution failed to convincingly establish the identity and integrity of the dangerous drug. Accordingly, there could be no assurance that the specimen of shabu offered in court as evidence against the accused was the same one seized from him, brought to the police station and afterwards, submitted for laboratory testing - especially considering that since the inception of this case, he has consistently denied that the supposed plastic sachet of shabu was not recovered from his possession when he was arrested at the "peryahan" on September 10, 2002 at 8:00 o'clock in the evening. In effect, the prosecution failed to fully prove the elements of the crime charged creating reasonable doubt on his criminal liability. As this Court held in Catuiran v. People, [31] 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 conflicts with every proposition relative to the culpability of the accused. All told, the corpus delecti in this case is not legally extant.

GR No. 185717

2011-06-08

PEOPLE v. GARRY DE LA CRUZ Y DELA CRUZ

VELASCO JR., J.

It is essential that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit; and that the identity of said drug be established with the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt.[38] This, the prosecution failed to do. The prosecution must offer the testimony of key witnesses to establish a sufficiently complete chain of custody.[39]

GR No. 189980

2011-04-06

PEOPLE v. ALBERTO BACUS ALCUIZAR

PEREZ, J.

The chain of custody rule requires that the marking of the seized items should be done in the presence of the apprehended violator and immediately upon confiscation to ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence.[19] In Lopez v. People[20] citing Catuiran v. People,[21] this Court held that: It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. Indeed, it is from the testimony of every witness who handled the evidence from which a reliable assurance can be derived that the evidence presented in court is one and the same as that seized from the accused.[22]

GR No. 178202

2010-05-14

PEOPLE v. NORMAN SITCO

VELASCO JR., J.

To reiterate, in prosecutions involving dangerous drugs, the substance itself constitutes the key part of the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[31] Taken with the uncorroborated testimony of Buan, the broken chain of custody over the marijuana and shabu in the instant case creates reasonable doubt on accused-appellant's guilt.

GR No. 184546

2010-02-22

PEOPLE v. WILSON SUAN Y JOLONGON

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Sale or possession of a dangerous drug can never be proven without seizure and identification of the prohibited drug. In People v. Magat,[26] we held that the existence of dangerous drugs is a condition sine qua non for conviction for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, it being the very corpus delicti of the crime. In prosecutions involving narcotics, the narcotic substance itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Of paramount importance therefore in these cases is that the identity of the dangerous drug be likewise established beyond reasonable doubt.[27]

GR No. 184546

2010-02-22

PEOPLE v. WILSON SUAN Y JOLONGON

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Jurisprudence abounds with cases where deviation from the standard procedure in an anti-narcotics operation produces doubts as to the identity and origin of the drug which inevitably results to the acquittal of the accused. In People v. Mapa,[32] we acquitted the appellant after the prosecution failed to clarify whether the specimen submitted to the National Bureau of Investigation for laboratory examination was the same one allegedly taken from the appellant. Also in People v. Dimuske,[33] we ruled that the failure to prove that the specimen of marijuana examined by the forensic chemist was that seized from the accused was fatal to the prosecution's case. The same holds true in People v. Casimiro[34] and in Zarraga v. People[35] where the appellant was acquitted for failure of the prosecution to establish the identity of the prohibited drug which constitutes the corpus delicti. Recently in Catuiran v. People,[36] we acquitted the petitioner for failure of the prosecution witnesses to observe the standard procedure regarding the authentication of the evidence.

GR No. 168644

2010-02-16

BSB GROUP v. SALLY GO

PERALTA, J.

Prefatorily, fundamental is the precept in all criminal prosecutions, that the constitutive acts of the offense must be established with unwavering exactitude and moral certainty because this is the critical and only requisite to a finding of guilt. [31] Theft is present when a person, with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things, takes the personal property of another without the latter's consent. It is qualified when, among others, and as alleged in the instant case, it is committed with abuse of confidence.[32] The prosecution of this offense necessarily focuses on the existence of the following elements: (a) there was taking of personal property belonging to another; (b) the taking was done with intent to gain; (c) the taking was done without the consent of the owner; (d) the taking was done without violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things; and (e) it was done with abuse of confidence.[33] In turn, whether these elements concur in a way that overcomes the presumption of guiltlessness, is a question that must pass the test of relevancy and competency in accordance with Section 3[34] Rule 128 of the Rules of Court.

GR No. 184037

2009-09-29

ANTONIO LOPEZ Y DELA CRUZ v. PEOPLE

NACHURA, J.

Given the factual milieu of this case, we find our ruling in Guido Catuiran y Necudemus v. People of the Philippines[22] instructive: We begin with the precept that in criminal prosecutions, fundamental is the requirement that the elemental acts constituting the offense be established with moral certainty as this is the critical and only requisite to a finding of guilt. In prosecutions involving narcotics, the narcotic substance itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Of prime importance therefore in these cases is that the identity of the dangerous drug be likewise established beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, it must be established with unwavering exactitude that the dangerous drug presented in court as evidence against the accused is the same as that seized from him in the first place. The chain of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.

	GR No. 198450 2016-01-11	PEOPLE v. FERNANDO RANCHE HAVANA DEL CASTILLO, J.
"In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be duly established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place; and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence."[19] The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence beyond reasonable doubt plus the fact of its delivery and/or sale are both vital and essential to a judgment of conviction in a criminal case.[20] And more than just the fact of sale, "[o]f prime importance therefore x x x is that the identity of the dangerous drug be likewise established beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, it must be established with unwavering exactitude that the dangerous drug presented in court as evidence against the accused is the same as that seized from him in the first place. The chain of custody requirement performs this function in that in ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed."[21]
	GR No. 209785 2014-06-04	PEOPLE v. MARLON ABETONG Y ENDRADO VELASCO JR., J.
A unique characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are not readily identifiable as in fact they are subject to scientific analysis to determine their composition and nature. And the risk of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an exhibit of this nature is greatest when the exhibit is small and is one that has physical characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form to substances familiar to people in their daily lives. As a reasonable measure, in authenticating narcotic specimens, a standard more stringent than that applied to cases involving objects which are readily identifiable must be applied a more exacting standard that entails a chain of custody of the item with sufficient completeness if only to render it improbable that the original item has either been exchanged with another or been contaminated or tampered with.[7]
	GR No. 198051 2012-12-10	PEOPLE v. WILLIAM DUMAPLIN Y CAHOY VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The prosecution must prove the requisite chain of custody of the seized specimen. "Chain of custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.[24] The prosecution must offer the testimony of key witnesses to establish a sufficiently complete chain of custody.[25] In this case, the trial court and the RTC concluded that the chain of custody of the confiscated shabu specimen was unbroken. However, the records belie such conclusion as it was not satisfactorily explained how the drugs were handled from the time the police officers allegedly seized them from appellant to the time they were presented in court as evidence.
	GR No. 180177 2012-04-18	ROGELIO S. REYES v. CA BERSAMIN, J.
Cogently, Mallilin v. People is reiterated in Catuiran v. People,[38] People v. Garcia,[39] and People v. Villanueva,[40] among others.
	GR No. 192261 2011-11-16	PEOPLE v. GARET SALCENA Y VICTORINO MENDOZA, J.
In view of the loopholes in the prosecution evidence as well as the gaps in the chain of custody, there is no assurance that the identity and integrity of the subject narcotic substance has not been compromised. In Catuiran v. People,[46] the Court held 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 conflicted with every proposition relative to the culpability of the accused.
	GR No. 186467 2011-07-13	PEOPLE v. JAIME GATLABAYAN Y BATARA MENDOZA, J.
In view of the foregoing loopholes in the evidence adduced against the accused as well as the gaps in the chain of custody, it can be reasonably concluded that the prosecution failed to convincingly establish the identity and integrity of the dangerous drug. Accordingly, there could be no assurance that the specimen of shabu offered in court as evidence against the accused was the same one seized from him, brought to the police station and afterwards, submitted for laboratory testing - especially considering that since the inception of this case, he has consistently denied that the supposed plastic sachet of shabu was not recovered from his possession when he was arrested at the "peryahan" on September 10, 2002 at 8:00 o'clock in the evening. In effect, the prosecution failed to fully prove the elements of the crime charged creating reasonable doubt on his criminal liability. As this Court held in Catuiran v. People, [31] 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 conflicts with every proposition relative to the culpability of the accused. All told, the corpus delecti in this case is not legally extant.
	GR No. 185717 2011-06-08	PEOPLE v. GARRY DE LA CRUZ Y DELA CRUZ VELASCO JR., J.
It is essential that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit; and that the identity of said drug be established with the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt.[38] This, the prosecution failed to do. The prosecution must offer the testimony of key witnesses to establish a sufficiently complete chain of custody.[39]
	GR No. 189980 2011-04-06	PEOPLE v. ALBERTO BACUS ALCUIZAR PEREZ, J.
The chain of custody rule requires that the marking of the seized items should be done in the presence of the apprehended violator and immediately upon confiscation to ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence.[19] In Lopez v. People[20] citing Catuiran v. People,[21] this Court held that: It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. Indeed, it is from the testimony of every witness who handled the evidence from which a reliable assurance can be derived that the evidence presented in court is one and the same as that seized from the accused.[22]
	GR No. 178202 2010-05-14	PEOPLE v. NORMAN SITCO VELASCO JR., J.
To reiterate, in prosecutions involving dangerous drugs, the substance itself constitutes the key part of the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[31] Taken with the uncorroborated testimony of Buan, the broken chain of custody over the marijuana and shabu in the instant case creates reasonable doubt on accused-appellant's guilt.
	GR No. 184546 2010-02-22	PEOPLE v. WILSON SUAN Y JOLONGON DEL CASTILLO, J.
Sale or possession of a dangerous drug can never be proven without seizure and identification of the prohibited drug. In People v. Magat,[26] we held that the existence of dangerous drugs is a condition sine qua non for conviction for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, it being the very corpus delicti of the crime. In prosecutions involving narcotics, the narcotic substance itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Of paramount importance therefore in these cases is that the identity of the dangerous drug be likewise established beyond reasonable doubt.[27]
	GR No. 184546 2010-02-22	PEOPLE v. WILSON SUAN Y JOLONGON DEL CASTILLO, J.
Jurisprudence abounds with cases where deviation from the standard procedure in an anti-narcotics operation produces doubts as to the identity and origin of the drug which inevitably results to the acquittal of the accused. In People v. Mapa,[32] we acquitted the appellant after the prosecution failed to clarify whether the specimen submitted to the National Bureau of Investigation for laboratory examination was the same one allegedly taken from the appellant. Also in People v. Dimuske,[33] we ruled that the failure to prove that the specimen of marijuana examined by the forensic chemist was that seized from the accused was fatal to the prosecution's case. The same holds true in People v. Casimiro[34] and in Zarraga v. People[35] where the appellant was acquitted for failure of the prosecution to establish the identity of the prohibited drug which constitutes the corpus delicti. Recently in Catuiran v. People,[36] we acquitted the petitioner for failure of the prosecution witnesses to observe the standard procedure regarding the authentication of the evidence.
	GR No. 168644 2010-02-16	BSB GROUP v. SALLY GO PERALTA, J.
Prefatorily, fundamental is the precept in all criminal prosecutions, that the constitutive acts of the offense must be established with unwavering exactitude and moral certainty because this is the critical and only requisite to a finding of guilt. [31] Theft is present when a person, with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things, takes the personal property of another without the latter's consent. It is qualified when, among others, and as alleged in the instant case, it is committed with abuse of confidence.[32] The prosecution of this offense necessarily focuses on the existence of the following elements: (a) there was taking of personal property belonging to another; (b) the taking was done with intent to gain; (c) the taking was done without the consent of the owner; (d) the taking was done without violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things; and (e) it was done with abuse of confidence.[33] In turn, whether these elements concur in a way that overcomes the presumption of guiltlessness, is a question that must pass the test of relevancy and competency in accordance with Section 3[34] Rule 128 of the Rules of Court.
	GR No. 184037 2009-09-29	ANTONIO LOPEZ Y DELA CRUZ v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
Given the factual milieu of this case, we find our ruling in Guido Catuiran y Necudemus v. People of the Philippines[22] instructive: We begin with the precept that in criminal prosecutions, fundamental is the requirement that the elemental acts constituting the offense be established with moral certainty as this is the critical and only requisite to a finding of guilt. In prosecutions involving narcotics, the narcotic substance itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Of prime importance therefore in these cases is that the identity of the dangerous drug be likewise established beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, it must be established with unwavering exactitude that the dangerous drug presented in court as evidence against the accused is the same as that seized from him in the first place. The chain of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.

GUIDO CATUIRAN Y NECUDEMUS v. PEOPLE