Lawyerly

GR No. 179936

2012-04-11

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

On the other hand, in a prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, it must be shown that (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.[27]

GR No. 186530

2011-12-14

PEOPLE v. NELLY ULAMA Y ARRISMA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

This Court has repeatedly held that "the defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been invariably viewed with disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a common defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act."[21] Indeed, the Court has observed that: Charges of extortion and frame-up are frequently made in this jurisdiction. Courts are, thus, cautious in dealing with such accusations, which are quite difficult to prove in light of the presumption of regularity in the performance of the police officers' duties. To substantiate such defense, which can be easily concocted, the evidence must be clear and convincing and should show that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty. Otherwise, the police officers' testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit.[22]

GR No. 175289

2011-08-31

CRISOSTOMO VILLARIN v. PEOPLE

DEL CASTILLO, J.

As a special law, the nature of the offense is malum prohibitum and as such, criminal intent is not an essential element. "However, the prosecution must prove that petitioners had the intent to possess (animus possidendi)" the timber.[53] "Possession, under the law, includes not only actual possession, but also constructive possession. Actual possession exists when the [object of the crime] is in the immediate physical control of the accused. On the other hand, constructive possession exists when the [object of the crime] is under the dominion and control of the accused or when he has the right to exercise dominion and control over the place where it is found."[54]

GR No. 193379

2011-08-15

CESAR D. CASTRO v. PEOPLE

VELASCO JR., J.

As a mode of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the presentation and admission of the seized prohibited drug as an exhibit be preceded by evidence to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent clams it to be.[12] This requirement is essential to obviate the possibility of substitution as well as to ensure that doubts regarding the identity of the evidence are removed through the monitoring and tracking of the movements and custody of the seized prohibited item, from the accused, to the police, to the forensic laboratory for examination, and to its presentation in evidence in court.[13] Ideally, the custodial chain would include testimony about every link in the chain or movements of the illegal drug, from the moment of seizure until it is finally adduced in evidence. It cannot be overemphasized, however, that a testimony about a perfect chain is almost always impossible to obtain.[14]

GR No. 182236

2011-06-22

PEOPLE v. CHITO GRATIL Y GUELAS

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

As we have time and again held, the defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been invariably viewed with disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a common defense in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. [23] Charges of extortion and frame-up are frequently made in this jurisdiction. Courts are, thus, cautious in dealing with such accusations, which are quite difficult to prove in light of the presumption of regularity in the performance of the police officers' duties. To substantiate such defense, which can be easily concocted, the evidence must be clear and convincing and should show that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty. Otherwise, the police officers' testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit. [24]

GR No. 194836

2011-06-15

PEOPLE v. ARNOLD CASTRO Y YANGA

VELASCO JR., J.

With respect to the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, the evidence of the prosecution has sufficiently established the elements thereof, to wit: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. [71]

GR No. 191198

2011-01-26

PEOPLE v. NENE QUIAMANLON Y MALOG

VELASCO JR., J.

With respect to the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Sec. 11, Art. II of RA 9165, the evidence of the prosecution has sufficiently established the elements of the violation, to wit: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.[31]

GR No. 178039

2011-01-19

PEOPLE v. ERNESTO UYBOCO Y RAMOS

PEREZ, J.

Appellant cannot rely on a vague mention of an interview, if it indeed exists, to discredit the testimony of P/Supt. Chan. The truth of the matter is appellant failed to prove the existence of the alleged taped conversations. The matters of failure of the police officer to properly document the alleged pay-off, the non-production of the master copy of the video tape, and the chain of custody supposedly broken are not semblance of neglect so as to debunk the presumption of regularity. In the absence of proof of motive on the part of the police officers to falsely ascribe a serious crime against the accused, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the trial court's assessment on the credibility of the apprehending officers, shall prevail over the accused's self-serving and uncorroborated claim of frame-up.[55]

GR No. 185163

2011-01-17

PEOPLE v. CARLO MAGNO AURE Y ARNALDO

VELASCO JR., J.

The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal possession of dangerous drugs are: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.[40]

GR No. 191366

2010-12-13

PEOPLE v. ARNOLD MARTINEZ Y ANGELES

MENDOZA, J.

The essential requisites to establish illegal possession of dangerous drugs are: (i) the accused was in possession of the dangerous drug, (ii) such possession is not authorized by law, and (iii) the accused freely and consciously possessed the dangerous drug.[25] Additionally, this being a case for violation of Section 13 of R.A. No. 9165, an additional element of the crime is (iv) the possession of the dangerous drug must have occurred during a party, or at a social gathering or meeting, or in the proximate company of at least two (2) persons.

GR No. 191069

2010-11-15

PEOPLE v. SULPICIO SONNY BOY TAN Y PHUA

VELASCO JR., J.

As a mode of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission or presentation of an exhibit, such as the seized prohibited drugs, be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be.[22] As held by this Court in Malillin v. People, this would ideally include the testimonies of all persons who handled the specimen, viz: x x x from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.[23]

GR No. 180870

2010-01-22

JULIUS CACAO Y PRIETO v. PEOPLE

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Likewise, our ruling in People v. Gutierrez[36] on chain of custody rule is instructive. Thus:As a mode of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires the presentation of the seized prohibited drugs as an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. This would ideally cover the testimony about every link in the chain, from seizure of the prohibited drug up to the time it is offered in evidence, in such a way that everyone who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, to include, as much as possible, a description of the condition in which it was delivered to the next in the chain.

	GR No. 179936 2012-04-11	PEOPLE v. JAMAD ABEDIN Y JANDAL VILLARAMA, JR., J.
On the other hand, in a prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, it must be shown that (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.[27]
	GR No. 186530 2011-12-14	PEOPLE v. NELLY ULAMA Y ARRISMA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
This Court has repeatedly held that "the defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been invariably viewed with disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a common defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act."[21] Indeed, the Court has observed that: Charges of extortion and frame-up are frequently made in this jurisdiction. Courts are, thus, cautious in dealing with such accusations, which are quite difficult to prove in light of the presumption of regularity in the performance of the police officers' duties. To substantiate such defense, which can be easily concocted, the evidence must be clear and convincing and should show that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty. Otherwise, the police officers' testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit.[22]
	GR No. 175289 2011-08-31	CRISOSTOMO VILLARIN v. PEOPLE DEL CASTILLO, J.
As a special law, the nature of the offense is malum prohibitum and as such, criminal intent is not an essential element. "However, the prosecution must prove that petitioners had the intent to possess (animus possidendi)" the timber.[53] "Possession, under the law, includes not only actual possession, but also constructive possession. Actual possession exists when the [object of the crime] is in the immediate physical control of the accused. On the other hand, constructive possession exists when the [object of the crime] is under the dominion and control of the accused or when he has the right to exercise dominion and control over the place where it is found."[54]
	GR No. 193379 2011-08-15	CESAR D. CASTRO v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
As a mode of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the presentation and admission of the seized prohibited drug as an exhibit be preceded by evidence to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent clams it to be.[12] This requirement is essential to obviate the possibility of substitution as well as to ensure that doubts regarding the identity of the evidence are removed through the monitoring and tracking of the movements and custody of the seized prohibited item, from the accused, to the police, to the forensic laboratory for examination, and to its presentation in evidence in court.[13] Ideally, the custodial chain would include testimony about every link in the chain or movements of the illegal drug, from the moment of seizure until it is finally adduced in evidence. It cannot be overemphasized, however, that a testimony about a perfect chain is almost always impossible to obtain.[14]
	GR No. 182236 2011-06-22	PEOPLE v. CHITO GRATIL Y GUELAS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
As we have time and again held, the defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been invariably viewed with disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a common defense in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. [23] Charges of extortion and frame-up are frequently made in this jurisdiction. Courts are, thus, cautious in dealing with such accusations, which are quite difficult to prove in light of the presumption of regularity in the performance of the police officers' duties. To substantiate such defense, which can be easily concocted, the evidence must be clear and convincing and should show that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty. Otherwise, the police officers' testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit. [24]
	GR No. 194836 2011-06-15	PEOPLE v. ARNOLD CASTRO Y YANGA VELASCO JR., J.
With respect to the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, the evidence of the prosecution has sufficiently established the elements thereof, to wit: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. [71]
	GR No. 191198 2011-01-26	PEOPLE v. NENE QUIAMANLON Y MALOG VELASCO JR., J.
With respect to the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Sec. 11, Art. II of RA 9165, the evidence of the prosecution has sufficiently established the elements of the violation, to wit: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.[31]
	GR No. 178039 2011-01-19	PEOPLE v. ERNESTO UYBOCO Y RAMOS PEREZ, J.
Appellant cannot rely on a vague mention of an interview, if it indeed exists, to discredit the testimony of P/Supt. Chan. The truth of the matter is appellant failed to prove the existence of the alleged taped conversations. The matters of failure of the police officer to properly document the alleged pay-off, the non-production of the master copy of the video tape, and the chain of custody supposedly broken are not semblance of neglect so as to debunk the presumption of regularity. In the absence of proof of motive on the part of the police officers to falsely ascribe a serious crime against the accused, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the trial court's assessment on the credibility of the apprehending officers, shall prevail over the accused's self-serving and uncorroborated claim of frame-up.[55]
	GR No. 185163 2011-01-17	PEOPLE v. CARLO MAGNO AURE Y ARNALDO VELASCO JR., J.
The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal possession of dangerous drugs are: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.[40]
	GR No. 191366 2010-12-13	PEOPLE v. ARNOLD MARTINEZ Y ANGELES MENDOZA, J.
The essential requisites to establish illegal possession of dangerous drugs are: (i) the accused was in possession of the dangerous drug, (ii) such possession is not authorized by law, and (iii) the accused freely and consciously possessed the dangerous drug.[25] Additionally, this being a case for violation of Section 13 of R.A. No. 9165, an additional element of the crime is (iv) the possession of the dangerous drug must have occurred during a party, or at a social gathering or meeting, or in the proximate company of at least two (2) persons.
	GR No. 191069 2010-11-15	PEOPLE v. SULPICIO SONNY BOY TAN Y PHUA VELASCO JR., J.
As a mode of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission or presentation of an exhibit, such as the seized prohibited drugs, be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be.[22] As held by this Court in Malillin v. People, this would ideally include the testimonies of all persons who handled the specimen, viz: x x x from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.[23]
	GR No. 180870 2010-01-22	JULIUS CACAO Y PRIETO v. PEOPLE DEL CASTILLO, J.
Likewise, our ruling in People v. Gutierrez[36] on chain of custody rule is instructive. Thus:As a mode of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires the presentation of the seized prohibited drugs as an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. This would ideally cover the testimony about every link in the chain, from seizure of the prohibited drug up to the time it is offered in evidence, in such a way that everyone who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, to include, as much as possible, a description of the condition in which it was delivered to the next in the chain.

PEOPLE v. FERNANDO GUTIERREZ Y GATSO