Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. GRACE VENTURA Y NATIVIDAD

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 205610 2014-07-30	PEOPLE v. RAMONITO VILLARTA Y RIVERA PEREZ, J.
In People v. Ventura,[34] this Court held that: The procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs, among others, is provided under Section 21, paragraph 1 of Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, as follows:
	GR No. 182236 2011-06-22	PEOPLE v. CHITO GRATIL Y GUELAS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In prosecutions involving the illegal sale of drugs, what is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug as evidence. For conviction of the crime of illegal sale of prohibited or regulated drugs, the following elements must concur: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it. [9]
	GR No. 194836 2011-06-15	PEOPLE v. ARNOLD CASTRO Y YANGA VELASCO JR., J.
Concomitantly, it is Castro who bears the burden to make some showing that the evidence was tampered or meddled with to overcome a presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers, as well as a presumption that said public officers properly discharged their duties. [64] Since Castro failed to discharge such burden, it cannot be disputed that the drugs seized from him were the same ones examined in the crime laboratory. The prosecution, therefore, established the crucial link in the chain of custody of the seized drugs.
	GR No. 191198 2011-01-26	PEOPLE v. NENE QUIAMANLON Y MALOG VELASCO JR., J.
Moreover, 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.[41] In this case, Quiamanlon bears the burden to show that the evidence was tampered or meddled with to overcome a presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers and a presumption that they properly discharged their duties.[42] Failing to discharge such burden, there can be no doubt that the drugs seized from Quiamanlon were the same ones examined in the crime laboratory. Evidently, the prosecution established the crucial link in the chain of custody of the seized drugs.