Lawyerly

GR No. 205764

2016-02-03

PERALTA, J.

Moreover, since the corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases constitutes the dangerous drugs itself,[11] proof beyond reasonable doubt that the seized item is the veiy same object tested to be positive for dangerous drugs and presented in court as evidence is essential in every criminal prosecution under R.A. 9165. Because the existence of the dangerous drug is crucial to a judgment of conviction, it is indispensable that the identity of the prohibited drug be established with the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt to ensure that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[12] To this end, the prosecution must establish the unbroken chain of custody of the seized item. As held in People of the Philippines v. Edwin Dalawis y Hidalgo:[13]

GR No. 207635

2015-02-18

PEOPLE v. DANTE DELA PEÑA

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

The contents of the plastic sachet sold by Dela Peña to IO1 Kintanar and the four sachets found in the former's possession, as well as, the single sachet seized from Delima, all tested positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug, upon the laboratory examination conducted by FC Sahagun. Her findings are contained in Chemistry Report No. D-663-2008, the genuineness and due execution of which was admitted by the defense.[27] Verily, the report of a government forensic chemist regarding a recovered prohibited drug enjoys the presumption of regularity as to its preparation.[28] Being an official record made in the performance of FC Sahagun's official duty, the entries in Chemistry Report No. D-663-2008 are prima facie evidence of the facts they state.[29] Dela Peña and Delima failed to overcome with competent evidence the positive findings for shabu of the contents of the subject sachets as contained in Chemistry Report No. D-663-2008.

GR No. 201111

2014-08-06

PEOPLE v. ALFREDO CERDON Y SANCHEZ

PEREZ, J.

The non-presentation of the forensic chemist is not fatal to the prosecution's case. In People v. Quebral,[18] this Court explained that "the corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases constitutes the dangerous drug itself. x x x [I]t has nothing to do with the testimony of the laboratory analyst. In fact, this Court has ruled that the report of an official forensic chemist regarding a recovered prohibited drug enjoys the presumption of regularity in its preparation. Corollarily, under Section 44, Rule 130, of the Revised Rules of Court, entries in official records made in the performance of official duty are prima facie evidence of the facts they state."[19]

GR No. 206738

2013-12-11

PEOPLE v. ERLINDA MALI Y QUIMNO

REYES, J.

Second, the failure of the forensic chemist to testify in court did not undermine the case for the prosecution. The non-presentation of the forensic chemist in illegal drug cases is an insufficient cause for acquittal. This is because the corpus delicti in criminal cases on prohibited drugs has nothing to do with the testimony of the laboratory analyst.[59]

GR No. 199938

2013-01-28

PEOPLE v. LABA Y CAMALOMNG SAMANODING

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

Neither will the non-presentation in court of Police Senior Inspector Ebuen, the forensic chemist who conducted the laboratory examination on the confiscated substance, operate to acquit appellant. The matter of presentation of witnesses by the prosecution is not for the court to decide. It has the discretion as to how to present its case and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses.[41] Besides, corpus delicti has nothing to do with the testimony of the chemical analyst, and the report of an official forensic chemist regarding a recovered prohibited drug enjoys the presumption of regularity in its preparation.[42] Corollarily, under Sec. 44 of Rule 130, Revised Rules of Court, entries in official records made in the performance of official duty are prima facie evidence of the facts they state.

GR No. 184606

2012-09-05

PEOPLE OF TILE PHILIPPINES v. CALEXTO DUQUE FUN DALES

DEL CASTILLO, J.

In People v. Quebral,[31] we held thus: The accused-appellants also point out that, since the chemist who examined the seized substance did not testify in court, the prosecution was unable to establish the indispensable element of corpus delicti. But this claim is unmeritorious. This Court has held that the non-presentation of the forensic chemist in illegal drug cases is an insufficient cause for acquittal. The corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases constitutes the dangerous drug itself. This means that proof beyond doubt of the identity of the prohibited drug is essential.

GR No. 182525

2011-03-02

PEOPLE v. BERTHA PRESAS Y TOLENTINO

PEREZ, J.

Assuming arguendo that there is no stipulation of facts, the non-presentation of the forensic chemist is not fatal to the prosecution's case. In People v. Quebral,[18] this Court explained: The corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases constitutes the dangerous drug itself. This means that proof beyond doubt of the identity of the prohibited drug is essential.

GR No. 186466

2010-07-26

PEOPLE v. CHRISTOPHER DESUYO Y BUEN

PEREZ, J.

But, as this Court has held in recent cases, i.e. People v. Agulay, [21] People v. Pringas,[22] and in the more recent case of People v. Quebral,[23] failure to comply strictly with those requirements will not render the seizure of the prohibited drugs invalid for so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers. Noteworthy as well is the proviso in the particular section of the Implementing Rules which states that `non-compliance with the stipulated procedure, under justifiable grounds, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items, for as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers.' The evident purpose of the procedure provided for is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt of or innocence of the accused.

GR No. 183101

2010-07-06

PEOPLE v. NOEL CATENTAY

ABAD, J.

On October 26, 2005 the trial court rendered a decision, dismissing Criminal Case Q-04-126517 since the crime of possession charged in it was absorbed by the crime of selling dangerous drugs charged in the other case as the Court enunciated in People v. Lacerna.[9] But, finding PO3 Quimson's testimony "credible and not doubtful x x x clear and forthright,"[10] the trial court found Catentay guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case Q-04-126518 of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 or the illegal selling of 0.03 grams of methylamphetamine hydrohloride, a dangerous drug, and sentenced him to the penalties of life imprisonment and fine of P500,000.00.[11]

GR No. 187737

2010-07-05

PEOPLE v. ALIODING SULTAN

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

The non-presentation of the chemist who tested the illegal drugs, contrary to appellant's contentions, is insufficient to acquit him. As we ruled in People v. ZenaidaQuebraly Mateo,etal.,[33] which dealt with a similar issue,

GR No. 180870

2010-01-22

JULIUS CACAO Y PRIETO v. PEOPLE

DEL CASTILLO, J.

At this juncture, it must be stressed that the "corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases constitutes the drug itself. This means that proof beyond reasonable doubt of the identity of the prohibited drug is essential".[35]

	GR No. 205764 2016-02-03	PEOPLE v. LEE QUIJANO ENAD PERALTA, J.
Moreover, since the corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases constitutes the dangerous drugs itself,[11] proof beyond reasonable doubt that the seized item is the veiy same object tested to be positive for dangerous drugs and presented in court as evidence is essential in every criminal prosecution under R.A. 9165. Because the existence of the dangerous drug is crucial to a judgment of conviction, it is indispensable that the identity of the prohibited drug be established with the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt to ensure that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[12] To this end, the prosecution must establish the unbroken chain of custody of the seized item. As held in People of the Philippines v. Edwin Dalawis y Hidalgo:[13]
	GR No. 207635 2015-02-18	PEOPLE v. DANTE DELA PEÑA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The contents of the plastic sachet sold by Dela Peña to IO1 Kintanar and the four sachets found in the former's possession, as well as, the single sachet seized from Delima, all tested positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug, upon the laboratory examination conducted by FC Sahagun. Her findings are contained in Chemistry Report No. D-663-2008, the genuineness and due execution of which was admitted by the defense.[27] Verily, the report of a government forensic chemist regarding a recovered prohibited drug enjoys the presumption of regularity as to its preparation.[28] Being an official record made in the performance of FC Sahagun's official duty, the entries in Chemistry Report No. D-663-2008 are prima facie evidence of the facts they state.[29] Dela Peña and Delima failed to overcome with competent evidence the positive findings for shabu of the contents of the subject sachets as contained in Chemistry Report No. D-663-2008.
	GR No. 201111 2014-08-06	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO CERDON Y SANCHEZ PEREZ, J.
The non-presentation of the forensic chemist is not fatal to the prosecution's case. In People v. Quebral,[18] this Court explained that "the corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases constitutes the dangerous drug itself. x x x [I]t has nothing to do with the testimony of the laboratory analyst. In fact, this Court has ruled that the report of an official forensic chemist regarding a recovered prohibited drug enjoys the presumption of regularity in its preparation. Corollarily, under Section 44, Rule 130, of the Revised Rules of Court, entries in official records made in the performance of official duty are prima facie evidence of the facts they state."[19]
	GR No. 206738 2013-12-11	PEOPLE v. ERLINDA MALI Y QUIMNO REYES, J.
Second, the failure of the forensic chemist to testify in court did not undermine the case for the prosecution. The non-presentation of the forensic chemist in illegal drug cases is an insufficient cause for acquittal. This is because the corpus delicti in criminal cases on prohibited drugs has nothing to do with the testimony of the laboratory analyst.[59]
	GR No. 199938 2013-01-28	PEOPLE v. LABA Y CAMALOMNG SAMANODING PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Neither will the non-presentation in court of Police Senior Inspector Ebuen, the forensic chemist who conducted the laboratory examination on the confiscated substance, operate to acquit appellant. The matter of presentation of witnesses by the prosecution is not for the court to decide. It has the discretion as to how to present its case and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses.[41] Besides, corpus delicti has nothing to do with the testimony of the chemical analyst, and the report of an official forensic chemist regarding a recovered prohibited drug enjoys the presumption of regularity in its preparation.[42] Corollarily, under Sec. 44 of Rule 130, Revised Rules of Court, entries in official records made in the performance of official duty are prima facie evidence of the facts they state.
	GR No. 184606 2012-09-05	PEOPLE OF TILE PHILIPPINES v. CALEXTO DUQUE FUN DALES DEL CASTILLO, J.
In People v. Quebral,[31] we held thus: The accused-appellants also point out that, since the chemist who examined the seized substance did not testify in court, the prosecution was unable to establish the indispensable element of corpus delicti. But this claim is unmeritorious. This Court has held that the non-presentation of the forensic chemist in illegal drug cases is an insufficient cause for acquittal. The corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases constitutes the dangerous drug itself. This means that proof beyond doubt of the identity of the prohibited drug is essential.
	GR No. 182525 2011-03-02	PEOPLE v. BERTHA PRESAS Y TOLENTINO PEREZ, J.
Assuming arguendo that there is no stipulation of facts, the non-presentation of the forensic chemist is not fatal to the prosecution's case. In People v. Quebral,[18] this Court explained: The corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases constitutes the dangerous drug itself. This means that proof beyond doubt of the identity of the prohibited drug is essential.
	GR No. 186466 2010-07-26	PEOPLE v. CHRISTOPHER DESUYO Y BUEN PEREZ, J.
But, as this Court has held in recent cases, i.e. People v. Agulay, [21] People v. Pringas,[22] and in the more recent case of People v. Quebral,[23] failure to comply strictly with those requirements will not render the seizure of the prohibited drugs invalid for so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers. Noteworthy as well is the proviso in the particular section of the Implementing Rules which states that `non-compliance with the stipulated procedure, under justifiable grounds, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items, for as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers.' The evident purpose of the procedure provided for is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt of or innocence of the accused.
	GR No. 183101 2010-07-06	PEOPLE v. NOEL CATENTAY ABAD, J.
On October 26, 2005 the trial court rendered a decision, dismissing Criminal Case Q-04-126517 since the crime of possession charged in it was absorbed by the crime of selling dangerous drugs charged in the other case as the Court enunciated in People v. Lacerna.[9] But, finding PO3 Quimson's testimony "credible and not doubtful x x x clear and forthright,"[10] the trial court found Catentay guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case Q-04-126518 of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 or the illegal selling of 0.03 grams of methylamphetamine hydrohloride, a dangerous drug, and sentenced him to the penalties of life imprisonment and fine of P500,000.00.[11]
	GR No. 187737 2010-07-05	PEOPLE v. ALIODING SULTAN VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The non-presentation of the chemist who tested the illegal drugs, contrary to appellant's contentions, is insufficient to acquit him. As we ruled in People v. ZenaidaQuebraly Mateo,etal.,[33] which dealt with a similar issue,
	GR No. 180870 2010-01-22	JULIUS CACAO Y PRIETO v. PEOPLE DEL CASTILLO, J.
At this juncture, it must be stressed that the "corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases constitutes the drug itself. This means that proof beyond reasonable doubt of the identity of the prohibited drug is essential".[35]

PEOPLE v. VS.ZENAIDA QUEBRAL Y MATEO