This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-11-12 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Prefatory, the rule according great weight, even finality at times, to the trial court's findings of fact does hold sway when, as here, it appears in the record that facts and circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied in a case under appeal.[20] Corollary, it is basic that an appeal in criminal prosecutions throws the whole case wide open for review, inclusive of the matter of credibility and appreciation of evidence.[21] | |||||
|
2008-12-10 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| IN FINE, as the failure to comply with the aforesaid requirements of the law compromised the identity of the items seized, which is the corpus delicti of each of the crimes charged against appellant,[21] his acquittal is in order. | |||||
|
2002-06-20 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| We find the appeal meritorious. Although the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal, the rule does not apply where it is shown that any fact of weight and substance has been overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied by the trial court.[22] In this case, several such circumstances stand out as having been overlooked or misapprehended by the lower court which entitle accused-appellant to an acquittal. | |||||
|
2002-06-20 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In People v. Mapa,[31] accused-appellant was granted an acquittal after the prosecution failed to clarify whether the specimen submitted to the NBI for laboratory examination was the same one allegedly taken from the accused. In People v. Dismuke,[32] this Court ruled that the failure to prove that the specimen of marijuana examined by the forensic chemist was that seized from the accused was fatal to the prosecution's case. In People v. Laxa,[33] the policemen composing the buy-bust team failed to mark the confiscated marijuana immediately after the alleged apprehension of accused-appellant. One policeman admitted that he marked the seized items only after seeing them for the first time in the police headquarters. It was held:This deviation from the standard procedure in anti-narcotics operations produces doubts as to the origins of the marijuana. Were the bags which the policemen allegedly recovered from the scene of the buy-bust operation the same ones which PO2 Espadera marked in the police headquarters? This question gives rise only to surmises and speculations, and cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of accused-appellant. In this case, the prosecution failed to prove the crucial first link in the chain of custody. The prosecution witnesses PO2 Supa, SPO2 Madlon, and PO3 Piggangay admitted they did not write their initials on the brick of marijuana immediately after allegedly seizing it from accused-appellant outside the grocery store but only did so in their headquarters.[34] The narcotics field test, which initially identified the seized item as marijuana, was likewise not conducted at the scene of the crime, but only at the narcotics office.[35] There is thus reasonable doubt as to whether the item allegedly seized from accused-appellant is the same brick of marijuana marked by the policemen in their headquarters and given by them to the crime laboratory for examination. | |||||
|
2002-06-20 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Indeed, there is failure in this case to observe standard operating procedure for a buy-bust operation. The government's drive against illegal drugs deserves everybody's support. But it is precisely when the government's purposes are beneficent that we should be most on our guard to protect these rights. As Justice Brandeis warned long ago, "the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding."[38] Our desire to stamp out criminality cannot be achieved at the expense of constitutional rights. For these reasons, we cannot uphold the conviction of accused-appellant. | |||||