This case has been cited 23 times or more.
|
2015-02-11 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Rowena's defense which is anchored principally on denial and frame-up cannot be given credence. It does not have more evidentiary weight than the positive assertions of the prosecution witnesses. Her defense is unavailing considering that she was caught in flagrante delicto in a legitimate buy-bust operation. This Court has ruled that the defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been invariably viewed by the courts with disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most prosecution for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[24] Moreover, we noted the inconsistency in the position of the defense. The defense witnesses maintain that the police officers searched and dipped their hands in the pocket of Rowena but did not find any money. During pre-trial, however, the defense admitted that the police officers recovered from Rowena one (1) Five Hundred Peso bill bearing serial number JN 693285.[25] It would be difficult to comprehend how the Php500.00 bill which was documented on the police blotter report ended with Rowena unless she received this from PO2 Garcia during the buy-bust operation. | |||||
|
2014-07-02 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Appellant's defense which is anchored principally on denial cannot be given credence. It does not have more evidentiary weight than the positive assertions of the prosecution witnesses. Appellant's defense is unavailing considering that he was caught in flagrante delicto in a legitimate buy-bust operation. This Court has ruled that the defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been invariably viewed by the courts with disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most prosecution for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[10] | |||||
|
2014-03-31 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Before anything else, it must be stressed that appellant raised the police operatives' alleged non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 for the first time on appeal. We have painstakingly scrutinized the transcripts of stenographic notes in this case and found no instance wherein appellant at the very least intimated during trial that there were lapses in the safekeeping of the seized item which affected its integrity and evidentiary value. Neither did he try to show that doubts were cast thereon. Such belated attempt on the part of appellant to raise this issue at this point in time can no longer be entertained. Following our ruling in People v. Sta. Maria,[23] several subsequent cases[24] teem with pronouncement that objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such objection, he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal. The above ruling finds proper application in the present case. | |||||
|
2014-03-10 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| In the present case, the totality of the prosecution's evidence shows the integrity of the drugs seized to be intact. The identity of the drugs was proven and the chain of its custody and possession has been duly accounted for and not broken. This can be gleaned from the testimonies of Espejo and Arce who narrated that from the moment the items were seized from appellant, the same were brought to the police station where Espejo marked them with his initials "MC-1," "MC-2" and "MC-3," properly inventoried, and, together with the laboratory request, were immediately delivered by Espejo himself to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination to determine the presence of dangerous drugs. Police Inspector Melanie Joy Ordoño conducted an examination on the specimens submitted with the corresponding markings and concluded that the three heat sealed transparent plastic sachets contained methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. Incidentally, this conclusion is bolstered by the defense's admission[18] of the existence and due execution of the request for laboratory examination, the Chemistry Report and the specimens submitted. Moreover, Espejo, when confronted during trial, identified the three plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance as the very same items confiscated from the appellant.[19] Under the situation, this Court finds no circumstance whatsoever that would hint any doubt as to the identity, integrity and evidentiary value of the items subject matter of this case. "Besides, the integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will or proof that the evidence has been tampered with"[20] and in such case, the burden of proof rests on the appellant.[21] Here, appellant miserably failed to discharge this burden. Moreover, and as aptly observed by the CA, appellant did not seasonably question these procedural gaps before the trial court. Suffice it to say that objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.[22] | |||||
|
2013-12-11 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Against the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the appellant could only muster a defense of outright denial, with nary any evidence to adequately support his version of the events that led to his arrest. Sadly for the appellant, this omission does nothing to help his cause. As held in People v. Hernandez[31]:The defense of denial and frame-up has been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor, for it can easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. In order to prosper, the defense of denial and frame-up must be proved with strong and convincing evidence. x x x. (Citations omitted.) | |||||
|
2013-11-13 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| People v. Hernandez[37] teaches that "[t]o secure a conviction for illegal sale of shabu, the following essential elements must be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof." People v. Nicolas[38] adds that "[w]hat is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti." | |||||
|
2013-08-28 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| We held in People v. Hernandez[35] that "[t]o secure a conviction for illegal sale of shabu, the following essential elements must be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof." Furthermore, we explained in People v. Denoman[36] that:A successful prosecution for the sale of illegal drugs requires more than the perfunctory presentation of evidence establishing each element of the crime: the identities of the buyer and seller, the transaction or sale of the illegal drug and the existence of the corpus delicti. In securing or sustaining a conviction under RA No. 9165, the intrinsic worth of these pieces of evidence, especially the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti, must definitely be shown to have been preserved. This requirement necessarily arises from the illegal drug's unique characteristic that renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise. Thus, to remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the accused-appellant; otherwise, the prosecution for possession or for drug pushing under RA No. 9165 fails. (Citations omitted.) | |||||
|
2013-02-06 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| x x x there is nothing in Republic Act No. 9165 or in its implementing rules, which requires each and everyone who came into contact with the seized drugs to testify in court. "As long as the chain of custody of the seized drug was clearly established to have not been broken and the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized, it is not indispensable that each and every person who came into possession of the drugs should take the witness stand." This Court, in People v. Hernandez,[33] citing People v. Zeng Hua Dian,[34] ruled: After a thorough review of the records of this case we find that the chain of custody of the seized substance was not broken and that the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized in this case. The non- presentation as witnesses of other persons such as SPO1 Grafia, the evidence custodian, and PO3 Alamia, the officer on duty, is not a crucial point against the prosecution. The matter of presentation of witnesses by the prosecution is not for the court to decide. The prosecution has the discretion as to how to present its case and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses.[35] | |||||
|
2012-11-26 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Significantly, in no instance did appellant manifest or at least intimate before the trial court that there were lapses in the handling and safekeeping of the seized item that might affect its admissibility, integrity and evidentiary value. When a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such objection, he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal as we ruled in People v. Sta. Maria[13] and reiterated in People v. Hernandez.[14] | |||||
|
2012-11-26 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| It should be noted that the alleged non-compliance with Section 21 of Article II of R.A. No. 9165 was not raised before the trial court but only for the first time on appeal. This cannot be done. In People v. Sta. Maria,[19] People v. Hernandez,[20] and People v. Lazaro, Jr.,[21] among others, in which the very same issue was belatedly raised, we ruled: x x x Indeed the police officers' alleged violations of Sections 21 and 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 were not raised before the trial court but were instead raised for the first time on appeal. In no instance did appellant least intimate at the trial court that there were lapses in the safekeeping of seized items that affected their integrity and evidentiary value. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such objection, he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal. | |||||
|
2012-02-29 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In seeking exculpation from the above charges, the accused-appellant invoked the defense that she was framed by the police. The Court, however, is not convinced. We reiterated in People v. Hernandez[53] that "[i]n order to prosper, the defense of denial and frame-up must be proved with strong and convincing evidence." | |||||
|
2012-02-29 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In any case, unless Mendoza can show that there was bad faith, ill will, or tampering with the evidence, the presumption that the integrity of the evidence has been preserved will be upheld. It is upon Mendoza to show the foregoing to overcome the presumption that the police officers handled the seized drugs with regularity, and that they properly performed their duties.[33] This burden, she failed to discharge. | |||||
|
2011-12-14 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Besides, the presumption that the integrity of the evidence has been preserved will remain unless it can be shown that there was bad faith, ill will, or tampering of the evidence. Amansec bears the burden of showing the foregoing to overcome the presumption that the police officers handled the seized drugs with regularity, and that they properly discharged their duties.[47] This, Amansec failed to do. | |||||
|
2011-10-12 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| xxx we have held in several cases that non-compliance with Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 is not fatal and will not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. In the case at bar, the integrity of the drug seized from appellants was preserved. The chain of custody of the drug subject matter of the instant case was shown not to have been broken. xxx Besides, the integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with. Appellants in this case bear the burden of showing that the evidence was tampered or meddled with to overcome a presumption that there was regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers, and that the latter properly discharged their duties. Appellants failed to produce convincing proof that the evidence submitted by the prosecution had been tampered with. xxx As earlier discussed, the only elements necessary to consummate the crime is proof that the illicit transaction took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the dangerous drug seized as evidence. Both were satisfactorily proved in the present case."[49] | |||||
|
2011-08-31 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Against the overwhelming evidence of the prosecution, petitioner merely denied the accusations against him and raised the defense of frame-up. The defense of denial and frame-up has been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor, for it can easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. In order to prosper, the defense of denial and frame-up must be proved with strong and convincing evidence.[30] | |||||
|
2011-08-15 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In contrast to the overwhelming evidence of the prosecution, petitioner merely raised the defense of alibi. The defense of denial and frame-up has been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor, for it can easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. In order to prosper, the defense of denial and frame-up must be proved with strong and convincing evidence.[23] | |||||
|
2011-03-14 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Moreover, non-compliance with the said regulation is not fatal to the prosecution as it does not render appellant's arrest illegal or the seized items inadmissible in evidence. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of herein appellant.[48] | |||||
|
2010-08-25 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Thus, in People v. Hernandez,[11] the Court dismissed the defense of frame-up relied upon by the accused for failing to present clear and convincing evidence to prove his allegations. The Court said: The defense of denial and frame-up has been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor, for it can easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. In order to prosper, the defense of denial and frame-up must be proved with strong and convincing evidence. In the case before us, appellants miserably failed to present any evidence in support of their claims. Aside from their self-serving assertions, no plausible proof was presented to bolster their allegations. (Emphasis supplied.) | |||||
|
2010-07-21 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Further, not all people who came into contact with the seized drugs are required to testify in court. There is nothing in Republic Act No. 9165 or in any rule implementing the same that imposes such requirement. As long as the chain of custody of the seized drug was clearly established not to have been broken and that the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized, it is not indispensable that each and every person who came into possession of the drugs should take the witness stand.[28] In People v. Zeng Hua Dian,[29] we ruled: After a thorough review of the records of this case, we find that the chain of custody of the seized substance was not broken and that the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized in this case. The non-presentation as witnesses of other persons such as SPO1 Grafia, the evidence custodian, and PO3 Alamia, the officer on duty, is not a crucial point against the prosecution. The matter of presentation of witnesses by the prosecution is not for the court to decide. The prosecution has the discretion as to how to present its case and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses. | |||||
|
2010-06-16 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We point out the defense's failure to contest the admissibility of the seized items as evidence during trial as this was the initial point in objecting to illegally seized evidence. At the trial, the seized shabu was duly marked, made the subject of examination and cross-examination, and eventually offered as evidence, yet at no instance did the appellant manifest or even hint that there were lapses in the safekeeping of seized items that affected their admissibility, integrity and evidentiary value. In People v. Hernandez,[43] we held that objection to the admissibility of evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such objection, he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal. | |||||
|
2010-06-16 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| From the point of view of jurisprudence, we are not beating any new path by holding that the failure to undertake the required photography and immediate marking of seized items may be excused by the unique circumstances of a case. In People v. Resurreccion,[50] we already stated that "marking upon immediate confiscation" does not exclude the possibility that marking can be at the police station or office of the apprehending team. In the cases of People v. Rusiana,[51] People v. Hernandez,[52] and People v. Gum-Oyen,[53] the apprehending team marked the confiscated items at the police station and not at the place of seizure. Nevertheless, we sustained the conviction because the evidence showed that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items seized had been preserved. To reiterate what we have held in past cases, we are not always looking for the strict step-by-step adherence to the procedural requirements; what is important is to ensure the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as these would determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. We succinctly explained this in People v. Del Monte[54] when we held: We would like to add that non-compliance with Section 21 of said law, particularly the making of the inventory and the photographing of the drugs confiscated and/or seized, will not render the drugs inadmissible in evidence. Under Section 3 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules. For evidence to be inadmissible, there should be a law or rule which forbids its reception. If there is no such law or rule, the evidence must be admitted subject only to the evidentiary weight that will [be] accorded it by the courts. x x x | |||||
|
2010-04-23 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| court. When the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally binding upon this Court.[21] Both the trial court and the appellate court found the testimonies of the victim, Paolo, his grandparents, Dominador and Corazon, to be categorical and credible. The defense did not sufficiently rebut their testimonies. | |||||
|
2009-10-16 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Further, not all people who came into contact with the seized drugs are required to testify in court. There is nothing in Republic Act No. 9165 or in any rule implementing the same that imposes such a requirement. As long as the chain of custody of the seized drug was clearly established not to have been broken and that the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized, it is not indispensable that each and every person who came into possession of the drugs should take the witness stand.[54] In People v. Zeng Hua Dian,[55] we ruled: After a thorough review of the records of this case, we find that the chain of custody of the seized substance was not broken and that the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized in this case. The non-presentation as witnesses of other persons such as SPO1 Grafia, the evidence custodian, and PO3 Alamia, the officer on duty, is not a crucial point against the prosecution. The matter of presentation of witnesses by the prosecution is not for the court to decide. The prosecution has the discretion as to how to present its case and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses. | |||||