This case has been cited 21 times or more.
|
2015-10-14 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Finally, the Court notes that there were nagging questions about the post-examination custody that were left unanswered by the prosecution evidence, particularly, as to who exercised custody and possession of the specimen after the chemical examination and how it was handled, stored and safeguarded pending its presentation as evidence in court. The failure of the prosecution to provide details pertaining to the said post-examination custody of the seized item created a gap in the chain of custody which again raised reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti.[30] | |||||
|
2015-03-11 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The manner and timing of the marking of the seized drugs or related items in accordance with the foregoing statutory rules are crucial in proving the chain of custody. The marking by the arresting officer of the drugs, being the starting point in the custodial link, should be made immediately upon the seizure, or, if that is not possible, as close to the time and place of the seizure as practicable under the obtaining circumstances. This immediate marking is essential because the succeeding handlers of the drugs would use the markings as their reference to the seizure, and because it further serves to segregate the marked seized drugs from all other evidence from the time and point of seizure until the drugs are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings. The deliberate taking of these identifying steps is statutorily aimed at obviating switching, "planting" or contamination of the evidence.[16] Verily, the preservation of the chain of custody vis-à-vis the drugs ensures the integrity of the evidence incriminating the accused, and fulfills the element of relevancy as a requisite for the admissibility of the evidence. | |||||
|
2015-02-23 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| With this concern for the due recording of the authorized movement and custody of the seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment, the presentation as evidence in court of the dangerous drugs subject of the illegal sale is material in every prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs.[39] This materiality derives from the dangerous drugs being themselves the corpus delicti. Indeed, proof of the corpus delicti is essential in every judgment of conviction.[40] Without proof of the corpus delicti, there is uncertainty about whether the crime really transpired or not. To eliminate the uncertainty, the Prosecution should account for every link in the chain of custody; otherwise, the crime is not established beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, the Prosecution does not comply with the indispensable requirement of proving the violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 either when the dangerous drugs are missing or when there are substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs that raise doubts about the authenticity of the evidence presented in court.[41] | |||||
|
2014-06-23 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Based on the foregoing statutory rules, the manner and timing of the marking of the seized drugs or related items are crucial in proving the chain of custody. Certainly, the marking after seizure by the arresting officer, being the starting point in the custodial link, should be made immediately upon the seizure, or, if that is not possible, as close to the time and place of the seizure as practicable under the obtaining circumstances. This stricture is essential because the succeeding handlers of the contraband would use the markings as their reference to the seizure. The marking further serves to separate the marked seized drugs from all other evidence from the time of seizure from the accused until the drugs are disposed of upon the termination of the criminal proceedings. The deliberate taking of these identifying steps is statutorily aimed at obviating switching, "planting" or contamination of the evidence.[15] Indeed, the preservation of the chain of custody vis-à-vis the contraband ensures the integrity of the evidence incriminating the accused, and relates to the element of relevancy as one of the requisites for the admissibility of the evidence. | |||||
|
2014-01-22 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Crucial in proving the chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related items immediately after they are seized from the accused.[27] In People v. Gonzales,[28] the Court explained that: The first stage in the chain of custody rule is the marking of the dangerous drugs or related items. Marking, which is the affixing on the dangerous drugs or related items by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his initials or signature or other identifying signs, should be made in the presence of the apprehended violator immediately upon arrest. The importance of the prompt marking cannot be denied, because succeeding handlers of dangerous drugs or related items will use the marking as reference. Also, the marking operates to set apart as evidence the dangerous drugs or related items from other material from the moment they are confiscated until they are disposed of at the close of the criminal proceedings, thereby forestalling switching, planting or contamination of evidence. In short, the marking immediately upon confiscation or recovery of the dangerous drugs or related items is indispensable in the preservation of their integrity and evidentiary value.[29] (Emphasis ours) | |||||
|
2014-01-15 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| In People v. Coreche,[47] we explained that the above-cited rules are intended to narrow the window of opportunity for tampering with evidence, as expressed in Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165. As noted by the Court which is worth stating: RA 9165 is silent on when and where marking should be done. On the other hand, its implementing rules provide guidelines on the inventory of the seized drugs, thus: "the physical inventory x x x shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures" (Section 21(a) of Implementing Rules and Regulations). In People v. Sanchez (G.R. No. 175832, 15 October 2008, 569 SCRA 194), we drew a distinction between marking and inventory and held that consistent with the chain of custody rule, the marking of the drugs seized without warrant must be done "immediately upon confiscation" and in the presence of the accused. | |||||
|
2013-10-09 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| First, the police officers who took part in the buy-bust operation failed to mark the seized item immediately after its confiscation from Guzon. The Court explained in People v. Coreche[48] the importance in the chain of custody of the immediate marking of an item that is seized from an accused, to wit: Crucial in proving chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related items immediately after they are seized from the accused. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link, thus it is vital that the seized contraband are immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed at the end of criminal proceedings, obviating switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence.[49] (Citation omitted and emphasis ours) | |||||
|
2013-09-02 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| "Crucial in proving chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related items immediately after they are seized from the accused. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link, thus it is vital that the seized contrabands are immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of criminal proceedings, obviating switching, planting, or contamination of evidence."[32] | |||||
|
2013-04-03 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The procedures underscore the value of establishing the chain of custody vis-à-vis the dangerous drugs. The Prosecution does not prove the violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 either when the dangerous drugs are missing, or when there are substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs that raise doubts about the authenticity of the evidence presented in court.[14] Accordingly, the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) the policy-making and strategy-formulating body in the planning and formulation of policies and programs on drug prevention and control tasked to develop and adopt a comprehensive, integrated, unified and balanced national drug abuse prevention and control strategy[15] has expressly defined chain of custody involving the dangerous drugs and other substances in the following terms in Section 1(b) of DDB Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002,[16] to wit: b. "Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition; | |||||
|
2013-01-30 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, in People v. Coreche,[41] the Court emphasized that the marking of the seized drugs must be done immediately after they are seized from the accused and failure to do so suffices to rebut the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties and raises reasonable doubt as to the authenticity of the corpus delicti, wit: Crucial in proving chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related items immediately after they are seized from the accused. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link, thus it is vital that the seized contraband are immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of criminal proceedings, obviating switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence. | |||||
|
2012-12-10 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Crucial in proving chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related items immediately after they are seized from the accused. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link. Thus it is vital that the seized contraband are immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of criminal proceedings, obviating switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence.[23] | |||||
|
2012-11-28 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| To discharge its duty of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the Prosecution must prove the corpus delicti. That proof is vital to a judgment of conviction.[27] On the other hand, the Prosecution does not comply with the indispensable requirement of proving the violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 when the dangerous drugs are missing but also when there are substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs that raise doubts about the authenticity of the evidence presented in court.[28] | |||||
|
2012-11-28 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Aside from being aware that the marking would be the starting point in the chain of custody to which the succeeding handlers of the seized drugs would refer, PO1 Ignacio and his team knew that the marking would also segregate the seized shabu from the mass of all other similar or related evidence from the moment of their seizure until their disposition at the end of the criminal proceedings, obviating switching, as well as the "planting" or contamination of evidence,[30] the very evil that the requirement for preserving the chain of custody sought to prevent. However, the identity between the plastic sachet of shabu sold and the plastic sachet of shabu offered as evidence would no longer be credibly shown because there were no details on the making of the marking by the investigator. In short, the non-compliance with the requirement to preserve the initial link in the chain of custody thoroughly undermined the link between the plastic sachet of shabu sold and the plastic sachet of shabu offered as evidence. | |||||
|
2012-11-26 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Moreover, to discharge its overall duty of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the State bears the burden of proving the corpus delicti, or the body of the crime. The Prosecution does not comply with the indispensable requirement of proving the corpus delicti either when the dangerous drugs are missing, or when there are substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs that raise doubts on the authenticity of the evidence ultimately presented in court.[44] That proof of the corpus delicti depends on a gapless showing of the chain of custody. As the Court has pointed out in People v. Belocura:[45] | |||||
|
2012-04-25 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Accordingly, despite the presumption of regularity in the performance of the official duties of law enforcers,[13] we stress that the step-by-step procedure outlined under R.A. 9165 is a matter of substantive law, which cannot be simply brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality. The provisions were crafted by Congress as safety precautions to address potential police abuses, especially considering that the penalty imposed may be life imprisonment. In People v. Coreche,[14] we explained thus: The concern with narrowing the window of opportunity for tampering with evidence found legislative expression in Section 21 (1) of RA 9165 on the inventory of seized dangerous drugs and paraphernalia by putting in place a three-tiered requirement on the time, witnesses, and proof of inventory by imposing on the apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs the duty to "immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof". (Emphasis supplied.) | |||||
|
2012-03-21 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Under Section 5 of R.A. 9165, the elements that must be proven for the successful prosecution of the illegal sale of shabu are as follows: (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 its payment.[23] The State has the burden of proving these elements and is obliged to present the corpus delicti in court to support a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[24] | |||||
|
2012-02-22 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| In drug-related prosecutions, the State bears the burden not only of proving the elements of the offenses of sale and possession of shabu under Republic Act No. 9165, but also of proving the corpus delicti, the body of the crime. "Corpus delicti has been defined as the body or substance of the crime and, in its primary sense, refers to the fact that a crime has been actually committed. As applied to a particular offense, it means the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged. The corpus delicti is a compound fact made up of two (2) things, viz: the existence of a certain act or result forming the basis of the criminal charge, and the existence of a criminal agency as the cause of this act or result."[24] The dangerous drug is itself the very corpus delicti of the violation of the law prohibiting the possession of the dangerous drug.[25] Consequently, the State does not comply with the indispensable requirement of proving corpus delicti when the drug is missing, and when substantial gaps occur in the chain of custody of the seized drugs as to raise doubts on the authenticity of the evidence presented in court.[26] | |||||
|
2012-01-18 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| In a prosecution of the sale and possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride prohibited under Republic Act No. 9165,[15] the State not only carries the heavy burden of proving the elements of the offense of, but also bears the obligation to prove the corpus delicti, failing in which the State will not discharge its basic duty of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is settled that the State does not establish the corpus delicti when the prohibited substance subject of the prosecution is missing or when substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the prohibited substance raise grave doubts about the authenticity of the prohibited substance presented as evidence in court.[16] Any gap renders the case for the State less than complete in terms of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.[17] Thus, Relato deserves exculpation, especially as we recall that his defense of frame-up became plausible in the face of the weakness of the Prosecution's evidence of guilt. | |||||
|
2011-07-20 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Crucial in proving chain of custody is the marking [29] of the seized drugs or other related items immediately after they are seized from the accused. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link, thus, it is vital that the seized contraband are immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of criminal proceedings, obviating switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence. [30] | |||||
|
2010-05-14 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Given the prosecution's failure to abide by the rules on the chain of custody, the evidentiary presumption that official duties have been regularly performed cannot apply to this case. This presumption, it must be emphasized, is not conclusive. Not only is it rebutted by contrary proof, as here, but it is also inferior to the constitutional presumption of innocence.[34] On this score, we have held that while an accused's defense engenders suspicion that he probably perpetrated the crime charged, it is not sufficient for a conviction that the evidence establishes a strong suspicion or probability of guilt. It is the burden of the prosecution to overcome the presumption of innocence by presenting the quantum of evidence required.[35] This quantum of evidence has not been met in the instant case. | |||||
|
2010-01-19 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We applied this ruling in People v. Garcia,[27] People v. Gum-Oyen,[28] People v. Denoman[29] and People v. Coreche[30] where we recognized the following links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. | |||||