Lawyerly

GR No. 192785

2015-02-04

DEL CASTILLO, J.

In a successful prosecution for the illegal sale of drugs, there must be evidence of the following elements: "(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 therefor."[15] The evidence of corpus delicti must also be established beyond doubt. In this case, the shabu "constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and in sustaining a conviction under [RA 9165], the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must definitely be shown to have been preserved."[16] "The chain of custody requirement performs this function in buy-bust operations as it ensures that doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed."[17]

GR No. 190177

2014-06-11

PEOPLE v. VIVIAN BULOTANO Y AMANTE

PEREZ, J.

The requirements laid down in Section 21 are not a statement of duties or a job description of the drugs law enforcement officers. It is a statement of procedure for compliance with the imperative that the thing presented as proof of violation of the law is precisely that which was confiscated or taken from the accused, recognizing the unique characteristic of illegal drugs being vulnerable to tampering, altering or substitution.[42] When it is not followed without any justifiable reason, an acquittal of the accused results.

GR No. 203028

2014-01-15

PEOPLE v. JOSELITO BERAN Y ZAPANTA

REYES, J.

A review of the facts of this case will readily make evident that the appellate decision failed to take note of vital gaps in the recording by the apprehending officers of authorized movements and custody of the seized shabu, as we shall point out, and these gaps compel us to rule that reasonable doubt exists as to the identity of the very corpus of the offense herein charged, the sachet of shabu recovered from Beran. In People v. Alcuizar,[26] we reiterated the rule that under R.A. No. 9165 the dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti, and that to sustain a conviction the identity and integrity of the drug must definitely be shown to have been preserved: The dangerous drug itself, the shabu in this case, constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and in sustaining a conviction under Republic Act No. 9165, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must definitely be shown to have been preserved. This requirement necessarily arises from the illegal drug's unique characteristic that renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise. Thus, to remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the accused-appellant; otherwise, the prosecution for possession under Republic Act No. 9165 fails.[27] (Citation omitted)

GR No. 197550

2013-09-25

PEOPLE v. ARTURO ENRIQUEZ Y DE LOS REYES

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

As the dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of both offenses, its identity and integrity must definitely be shown to have been preserved.[31] "This means that on top of the elements of possession or illegal sale, the fact that the substance [possessed or illegally sold], in the first instance, the very substance adduced in court must likewise be established with the same exacting degree of certitude as that required sustaining a conviction."[32] Thus, the prosecution must be able to account for each link in the chain of custody over the dangerous drug, from the moment it was seized from the accused up to the time it was presented in court as proof of the corpus delicti.[33] The chain of custody requirement "ensures that unnecessary doubts respecting the identity of the evidence are minimized if not altogether removed."[34]

GR No. 192050

2013-01-09

NELSON VALLENO Y LUCITO v. PEOPLE

PEREZ, J.

The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and in sustaining a conviction under Republic Act No. 9165, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must definitely be shown to have been preserved. In other words, the evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the accused.[30]

GR No. 198820

2012-12-10

PEOPLE v. RENATO LAPASARAN Y MEDINILLA a.k.a. 'MAO

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

For prosecution for both illegal sale and illegal possession of a dangerous drug, the corpus delicti of the offenses is the dangerous drug itself, in this case shabu. In People v. Alcuizar,[14] this Court stated that: The dangerous drug itself, the shabu in this case, constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and in sustaining a conviction under Republic Act No. 9165, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must definitely be shown to have been preserved. This requirement necessarily arises from the illegal drug's unique characteristic that renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise. Thus, to remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the accused-appellant; otherwise, the prosecution for possession under Republic Act No. 9165 fails.[15] (Citation omitted.)

GR No. 189277

2012-12-05

PEOPLE v. RICARDO REMIGIO Y ZAPANTA

PEREZ, J.

On the other hand, a case of illegal possession of dangerous drugs will prosper if the following elements are present: (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 drug.[60]

GR No. 188107

2012-12-05

PEOPLE v. RONALD M. DEL ROSARIO

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

It must be remembered that to successfully prosecute a case of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, it is not enough that the buyer, seller, and consideration for the transaction are identified. It is equally important that the object of the case is identified with certainty. The prosecution must be able to account for each link in the chain of custody over the shabu, from the moment it was seized from Del Rosario, up to the time it was presented in court as proof of the corpus delicti, "i.e., the body or substance of the crime that establishes that a crime has actually been committed, as shown by presenting the object of the illegal transaction."[32] Elucidating on the importance of the foregoing, this Court, in People v. Alcuizar,[33] held: The dangerous drug itself, the shabu in this case, constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and in sustaining a conviction under Republic Act No. 9165, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must definitely be shown to have been preserved. This requirement necessarily arises from the illegal drug's unique characteristic that renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise. Thus, to remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the accused-appellant; otherwise, the prosecution for possession under Republic Act No. 9165 fails. (Citation omitted.)

GR No. 185460

2012-07-25

EDWIN FAJARDO

PEREZ, J.

Another phase of the first link to the chain of custody is the marking of seized items. The rule requires that it should be done in the presence of the apprehended violator and immediately upon confiscation to ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence.[26] Evidently, the marking was not done at the scene of the crime. In fact, PO1 Bernardo testified that it was an investigator of the crime laboratory, whose name he cannot recall, who made the markings. Indeed, PO1 Bernardo could not explain the actual markings.[27]

GR No. 199403

2012-06-13

PEOPLE v. GOMER S. CLIMACO

CARPIO, J.

On the other hand, to successfully prosecute a case of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be established: (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 drug.[19]

	GR No. 192785 2015-02-04	PEOPLE v. JOMER BUTIAL DEL CASTILLO, J.
In a successful prosecution for the illegal sale of drugs, there must be evidence of the following elements: "(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 therefor."[15] The evidence of corpus delicti must also be established beyond doubt. In this case, the shabu "constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and in sustaining a conviction under [RA 9165], the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must definitely be shown to have been preserved."[16] "The chain of custody requirement performs this function in buy-bust operations as it ensures that doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed."[17]
	GR No. 190177 2014-06-11	PEOPLE v. VIVIAN BULOTANO Y AMANTE PEREZ, J.
The requirements laid down in Section 21 are not a statement of duties or a job description of the drugs law enforcement officers. It is a statement of procedure for compliance with the imperative that the thing presented as proof of violation of the law is precisely that which was confiscated or taken from the accused, recognizing the unique characteristic of illegal drugs being vulnerable to tampering, altering or substitution.[42] When it is not followed without any justifiable reason, an acquittal of the accused results.
	GR No. 203028 2014-01-15	PEOPLE v. JOSELITO BERAN Y ZAPANTA REYES, J.
A review of the facts of this case will readily make evident that the appellate decision failed to take note of vital gaps in the recording by the apprehending officers of authorized movements and custody of the seized shabu, as we shall point out, and these gaps compel us to rule that reasonable doubt exists as to the identity of the very corpus of the offense herein charged, the sachet of shabu recovered from Beran. In People v. Alcuizar,[26] we reiterated the rule that under R.A. No. 9165 the dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti, and that to sustain a conviction the identity and integrity of the drug must definitely be shown to have been preserved: The dangerous drug itself, the shabu in this case, constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and in sustaining a conviction under Republic Act No. 9165, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must definitely be shown to have been preserved. This requirement necessarily arises from the illegal drug's unique characteristic that renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise. Thus, to remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the accused-appellant; otherwise, the prosecution for possession under Republic Act No. 9165 fails.[27] (Citation omitted)
	GR No. 197550 2013-09-25	PEOPLE v. ARTURO ENRIQUEZ Y DE LOS REYES LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
As the dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of both offenses, its identity and integrity must definitely be shown to have been preserved.[31] "This means that on top of the elements of possession or illegal sale, the fact that the substance [possessed or illegally sold], in the first instance, the very substance adduced in court must likewise be established with the same exacting degree of certitude as that required sustaining a conviction."[32] Thus, the prosecution must be able to account for each link in the chain of custody over the dangerous drug, from the moment it was seized from the accused up to the time it was presented in court as proof of the corpus delicti.[33] The chain of custody requirement "ensures that unnecessary doubts respecting the identity of the evidence are minimized if not altogether removed."[34]
	GR No. 192050 2013-01-09	NELSON VALLENO Y LUCITO v. PEOPLE PEREZ, J.
The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and in sustaining a conviction under Republic Act No. 9165, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must definitely be shown to have been preserved. In other words, the evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the accused.[30]
	GR No. 198820 2012-12-10	PEOPLE v. RENATO LAPASARAN Y MEDINILLA a.k.a. 'MAO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
For prosecution for both illegal sale and illegal possession of a dangerous drug, the corpus delicti of the offenses is the dangerous drug itself, in this case shabu. In People v. Alcuizar,[14] this Court stated that: The dangerous drug itself, the shabu in this case, constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and in sustaining a conviction under Republic Act No. 9165, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must definitely be shown to have been preserved. This requirement necessarily arises from the illegal drug's unique characteristic that renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise. Thus, to remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the accused-appellant; otherwise, the prosecution for possession under Republic Act No. 9165 fails.[15] (Citation omitted.)
	GR No. 189277 2012-12-05	PEOPLE v. RICARDO REMIGIO Y ZAPANTA PEREZ, J.
On the other hand, a case of illegal possession of dangerous drugs will prosper if the following elements are present: (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 drug.[60]
	GR No. 188107 2012-12-05	PEOPLE v. RONALD M. DEL ROSARIO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It must be remembered that to successfully prosecute a case of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, it is not enough that the buyer, seller, and consideration for the transaction are identified. It is equally important that the object of the case is identified with certainty. The prosecution must be able to account for each link in the chain of custody over the shabu, from the moment it was seized from Del Rosario, up to the time it was presented in court as proof of the corpus delicti, "i.e., the body or substance of the crime that establishes that a crime has actually been committed, as shown by presenting the object of the illegal transaction."[32] Elucidating on the importance of the foregoing, this Court, in People v. Alcuizar,[33] held: The dangerous drug itself, the shabu in this case, constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and in sustaining a conviction under Republic Act No. 9165, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must definitely be shown to have been preserved. This requirement necessarily arises from the illegal drug's unique characteristic that renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise. Thus, to remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the accused-appellant; otherwise, the prosecution for possession under Republic Act No. 9165 fails. (Citation omitted.)
	GR No. 185460 2012-07-25	EDWIN FAJARDO PEREZ, J.
Another phase of the first link to the chain of custody is the marking of seized items. The rule requires that it should be done in the presence of the apprehended violator and immediately upon confiscation to ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence.[26] Evidently, the marking was not done at the scene of the crime. In fact, PO1 Bernardo testified that it was an investigator of the crime laboratory, whose name he cannot recall, who made the markings. Indeed, PO1 Bernardo could not explain the actual markings.[27]
	GR No. 199403 2012-06-13	PEOPLE v. GOMER S. CLIMACO CARPIO, J.
On the other hand, to successfully prosecute a case of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be established: (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 drug.[19]

PEOPLE v. ALBERTO BACUS ALCUIZAR