Lawyerly

GR No. 192284

2015-03-11

DEL CASTILLO, J.

With respect to the seized illegal substance, the presentation of the drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and its existence is indispensable to a judgment of conviction. It behooves upon the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the narcotic substance. It must be shown that the item subject of the offense is the same substance offered in court as exhibit.[23] The chain of custody requirements provided for in Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165 performs this function as it ensures the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the item so that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[24]

GR No. 207988

2015-03-11

PEOPLE v. BRIAN MERCADO Y SARMIENTO

PEREZ, J.

It is essential for the prosecution to prove that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit. Its identity must be established with unwavering exactitude for it to lead to a finding of guilt.[29]

GR No. 205741

2014-07-23

PEOPLE v. REYMAN ENDAYA Y LAIG

PEREZ, J.

In People v. Salonga,[47] we held that "it is essential for the prosecution to prove that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit. Its identity must be established with unwavering exactitude for it to lead to a finding of guilt."[48] That the substances which were sent to the crime laboratory and examined by the forensic chemical officer and found to be shabu were the very same substances which the police officers seized from appellant is proven by the following excerpts from the testimony of SPO4 Benedicto: [PROS. SANDOVAL] Mr[.] witness you said that aside from the one heat sealed transparent plastic sachet which accused Reyman Endaya y Laig sold to your poseur buyer in the evening of November 20, 2002 you also recovered eight (8) other sachets of shabu from him after his arrest if you will be shown these nine (9) plastic sachets of shabu can you identify the same? [SPO4 BENEDICTO] Yes sir. Q: Can you distinguish in [sic] these nine (9) plastic sachets which one was the subject matter of the buy bust operation and which of those was taken from the possession of the accused after his arrest? A: Yes sir Q: How would you distinguish these specimens from each other? A: My companion placed his markings on all the sachets sir. Q: How about the one (1) plastic sachet which your poseur buyer was able to buy from Reyman Endaya has it any distinguishing mark also after his arrest? A: There is a distinguishing mark sir. Q: What was the distinguishing mark? A: The sachet of shabu which was confiscated in [sic] the buy bust operation was marked by burning two ends of the plastic sachet, sir. Q: If you will be shown this [sic] specimen[s] can you identify them? A: Yes sir. Q: x x x will you please look at these specimens Mr. Witness and tell this Honorable Court what relation has the specimens to the eight (8) plastic sachets that were confiscated from accused Reyman Endaya after his arrest? A: These eight (8) sachets of shabu were confiscated when we searched him sir. x x x x Q: How about the plastic sachet which accused Reyman Endaya sold to your buyer in the buy bust operation? A: This sachet which was burned on both two (2) corners sir.[49] (Emphasis supplied)

GR No. 201725

2014-07-18

PEOPLE v. JOY ALCALA Y NOVILLA

PEREZ, J.

It is essential for the prosecution to prove that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit. Its identity must be established with unwavering exactitude for it to lead to a finding of guilt.[27]

GR No. 196146

2014-03-12

PEOPLE v. FREDDIE LADIP Y RUBIO

PEREZ, J.

In People v. Salonga,[36] we held that it is essential for the prosecution to prove that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit. Its identity must be established with unwavering exactitude for it to lead to a finding of guilt. Thus, drug enforcement agents and police officers involved in a buy-bust operation are required under R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rules to mark all seized evidence at the buy-bust scene. Section 21 (a), Article II of the IRR, states: SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. x x x

GR No. 194948

2013-09-02

PEOPLE v. FREDDY SALONGA Y AFIADO

SERENO, C.J.

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, 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; xxx. In People v. Salonga,[30] we held that it is essential for the prosecution to prove that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as an exhibit. This Court, however, finds reasonable doubt on the evidence presented to prove an unbroken chain of custody.

GR No. 194382

2013-06-10

PEOPLE PHILIPPINES v. GLORIA CALUMBRES Y AUDITOR

PEREZ, J.

We reiterate that this Court will never waver in ensuring that the prescribed procedures in the handling of the seized drugs should be observed. In People v. Salonga,[9] we acquitted the accused for the failure of the police to inventory and photograph the confiscated items. We also reversed a conviction in People v. Gutierrez,[10] for the failure of the buy-bust team to inventory and photograph the seized items without justifiable grounds. People v. Cantalejo[11] also resulted in an acquittal because no inventory or photograph was ever made by the police.

GR No. 189277

2012-12-05

PEOPLE v. RICARDO REMIGIO Y ZAPANTA

PEREZ, J.

We have decided that in prosecutions involving narcotics, the narcotic substance itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt. To emphasize the importance of the corpus delicti in drug charges, we have held that 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.[65]

GR No. 190749

2012-04-25

VALENTIN ZAFRA Y DECHOSA v. PEOPLE

PEREZ, J.

We reiterate, that this Court will never waver in ensuring that the prescribed procedures in the handling of the seized drugs should be observed. In People v. Salonga,[41] we acquitted the accused for the failure of the police to inventory and photograph the confiscated items. We also reversed a conviction in People v. Gutierrez,[42] for the failure of the buy-bust team to inventory and photograph the seized items without justifiable grounds. People v. Cantalejo[43] also resulted in an acquittal because no inventory or photograph was ever made by the police.

GR No. 190342

2012-03-21

PEOPLE v. CIPRIANO CARDENAS Y GOFRERICA

SERENO, J.

In People v. Salonga,[25] we held that it is essential for the prosecution to prove that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit. Its identity must be established with unwavering exactitude for it to lead to a finding of guilt. Thus, drug enforcement agents and police officers involved in a buy-bust operation are required by R.A. 9165 and its implementing rules to mark all seized evidence at the buy-bust scene. Section 21 (a), Article II of the IRR, states: SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment.

GR No. 186498

2010-03-26

PEOPLE v. RONALDO DE GUZMAN Y DANZIL

NACHURA, J.

The chain of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[27] Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 states: Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. - The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

	GR No. 192284 2015-03-11	ALEX TIONCO Y ORTEGA v. PEOPLE DEL CASTILLO, J.
With respect to the seized illegal substance, the presentation of the drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and its existence is indispensable to a judgment of conviction. It behooves upon the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the narcotic substance. It must be shown that the item subject of the offense is the same substance offered in court as exhibit.[23] The chain of custody requirements provided for in Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165 performs this function as it ensures the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the item so that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[24]
	GR No. 207988 2015-03-11	PEOPLE v. BRIAN MERCADO Y SARMIENTO PEREZ, J.
It is essential for the prosecution to prove that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit. Its identity must be established with unwavering exactitude for it to lead to a finding of guilt.[29]
	GR No. 205741 2014-07-23	PEOPLE v. REYMAN ENDAYA Y LAIG PEREZ, J.
In People v. Salonga,[47] we held that "it is essential for the prosecution to prove that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit. Its identity must be established with unwavering exactitude for it to lead to a finding of guilt."[48] That the substances which were sent to the crime laboratory and examined by the forensic chemical officer and found to be shabu were the very same substances which the police officers seized from appellant is proven by the following excerpts from the testimony of SPO4 Benedicto: [PROS. SANDOVAL] Mr[.] witness you said that aside from the one heat sealed transparent plastic sachet which accused Reyman Endaya y Laig sold to your poseur buyer in the evening of November 20, 2002 you also recovered eight (8) other sachets of shabu from him after his arrest if you will be shown these nine (9) plastic sachets of shabu can you identify the same? [SPO4 BENEDICTO] Yes sir. Q: Can you distinguish in [sic] these nine (9) plastic sachets which one was the subject matter of the buy bust operation and which of those was taken from the possession of the accused after his arrest? A: Yes sir Q: How would you distinguish these specimens from each other? A: My companion placed his markings on all the sachets sir. Q: How about the one (1) plastic sachet which your poseur buyer was able to buy from Reyman Endaya has it any distinguishing mark also after his arrest? A: There is a distinguishing mark sir. Q: What was the distinguishing mark? A: The sachet of shabu which was confiscated in [sic] the buy bust operation was marked by burning two ends of the plastic sachet, sir. Q: If you will be shown this [sic] specimen[s] can you identify them? A: Yes sir. Q: x x x will you please look at these specimens Mr. Witness and tell this Honorable Court what relation has the specimens to the eight (8) plastic sachets that were confiscated from accused Reyman Endaya after his arrest? A: These eight (8) sachets of shabu were confiscated when we searched him sir. x x x x Q: How about the plastic sachet which accused Reyman Endaya sold to your buyer in the buy bust operation? A: This sachet which was burned on both two (2) corners sir.[49] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 201725 2014-07-18	PEOPLE v. JOY ALCALA Y NOVILLA PEREZ, J.
It is essential for the prosecution to prove that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit. Its identity must be established with unwavering exactitude for it to lead to a finding of guilt.[27]
	GR No. 196146 2014-03-12	PEOPLE v. FREDDIE LADIP Y RUBIO PEREZ, J.
In People v. Salonga,[36] we held that it is essential for the prosecution to prove that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit. Its identity must be established with unwavering exactitude for it to lead to a finding of guilt. Thus, drug enforcement agents and police officers involved in a buy-bust operation are required under R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rules to mark all seized evidence at the buy-bust scene. Section 21 (a), Article II of the IRR, states: SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. x x x
	GR No. 194948 2013-09-02	PEOPLE v. FREDDY SALONGA Y AFIADO SERENO, C.J.
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, 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; xxx. In People v. Salonga,[30] we held that it is essential for the prosecution to prove that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as an exhibit. This Court, however, finds reasonable doubt on the evidence presented to prove an unbroken chain of custody.
	GR No. 194382 2013-06-10	PEOPLE PHILIPPINES v. GLORIA CALUMBRES Y AUDITOR PEREZ, J.
We reiterate that this Court will never waver in ensuring that the prescribed procedures in the handling of the seized drugs should be observed. In People v. Salonga,[9] we acquitted the accused for the failure of the police to inventory and photograph the confiscated items. We also reversed a conviction in People v. Gutierrez,[10] for the failure of the buy-bust team to inventory and photograph the seized items without justifiable grounds. People v. Cantalejo[11] also resulted in an acquittal because no inventory or photograph was ever made by the police.
	GR No. 189277 2012-12-05	PEOPLE v. RICARDO REMIGIO Y ZAPANTA PEREZ, J.
We have decided that in prosecutions involving narcotics, the narcotic substance itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt. To emphasize the importance of the corpus delicti in drug charges, we have held that 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.[65]
	GR No. 190749 2012-04-25	VALENTIN ZAFRA Y DECHOSA v. PEOPLE PEREZ, J.
We reiterate, that this Court will never waver in ensuring that the prescribed procedures in the handling of the seized drugs should be observed. In People v. Salonga,[41] we acquitted the accused for the failure of the police to inventory and photograph the confiscated items. We also reversed a conviction in People v. Gutierrez,[42] for the failure of the buy-bust team to inventory and photograph the seized items without justifiable grounds. People v. Cantalejo[43] also resulted in an acquittal because no inventory or photograph was ever made by the police.
	GR No. 190342 2012-03-21	PEOPLE v. CIPRIANO CARDENAS Y GOFRERICA SERENO, J.
In People v. Salonga,[25] we held that it is essential for the prosecution to prove that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit. Its identity must be established with unwavering exactitude for it to lead to a finding of guilt. Thus, drug enforcement agents and police officers involved in a buy-bust operation are required by R.A. 9165 and its implementing rules to mark all seized evidence at the buy-bust scene. Section 21 (a), Article II of the IRR, states: SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment.
	GR No. 186498 2010-03-26	PEOPLE v. RONALDO DE GUZMAN Y DANZIL NACHURA, J.
The chain of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[27] Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 states: Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. - The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

PEOPLE v. ROSEMARIE R. SALONGA