This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-11-12 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Given the foregoing circumstances, it is beyond any cavil of doubt that the prosecution miserably failed to specifically identify the four sticks of handrolled marijuana cigarettes that were actually sold at the buy-bust as among those that were presented in court. This evidentiary situation effectively translates to the absence of proof of corpus delicti, and cannot but lead this Court to conclude that no valid conviction for the crime of illegal sale of marijuana can result.[28] | |||||
|
2010-08-25 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| People v. Bernardino[7] where the accused was convicted of illegal possession but acquitted of illegal sale of shabu due to doubts as to the chain of custody is not on four squares with the present case. In said case, while the forensic chemist duly identified the shabu she examined and testified on the results thereof, her testimony merely referred to the specimens submitted by the apprehending officer, hence, the conclusion that "no clear specific link exists between the examined specimen and the shabu allegedly sold at the buy-bust except by inference," for there was no segregation of which sachets of shabu submitted were for the charge of illegal sale or for the charge of illegal possession. The factual milieu in Bernardino thus differs from that of the present case, there being no question that there was only one plastic sachet of shabu confiscate from appellant to give rise to confusion during its laboratory examination and presentation in evidence. | |||||