Lawyerly

GR No. 207988

2015-03-11

PEREZ, J.

Undoubtedly, the prosecution had indeed established that there was a buy-bust operation[22] showing that accused-appellant sold and delivered the shabu for value to PO3 Ramon Galvez (PO3 Galvez), the poseur-buyer. PO3 Galvez himself testified that there was an actual exchange of the marked-money and the prohibited drug. Likewise, accused-appellant was fully aware that what he was selling was illegal and prohibited considering that when PO3 Galvez told him, "pre, pa-iskor naman," the former immediately answered, "magkano?," then when the poseur-buyer replied, "dos lang," it resulted to the production of three (3) pieces of plastic sachets from accused-appellant's pocket. Thereafter, the corpus delicti or the subject drug was seized, marked, and subsequently identified as a prohibited drug. Note that there was nothing in the records showing that he had authority to possess them. Jurisprudence had pronounced repeatedly that mere possession of a prohibited drug constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of any satisfactory explanation.[23] Above all, accused-appellant likewise failed to present contrary evidence to rebut his possession of the shabu. Taken collectively, the illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs by accused-appellant were indeed established beyond reasonable doubt.

GR No. 207635

2015-02-18

PEOPLE v. DANTE DELA PEÑA

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

To sum up, from the time the illegal drugs were seized from Dela Peña and Delima, up to their delivery to the crime laboratory for chemical examination, until their presentation in evidence before the RTC, the integrity of said items was preserved. No evidence was adduced by the defense showing that they were tainted in any manner. Verily, 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.[66] Dela Peña and Delima failed to discharge their burden of proving that the evidence was tampered to overcome the presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers and the presumption that the public officers properly discharged their duties.[67]

GR No. 206912

2014-09-10

PEOPLE v. DEMOSTHENES BONTUYAN

PEREZ, J.

In resolving the issue, accused-appellant seeks before this Court to delve into the factual matters of the case. However, settled is the rule that factual findings of the appellate court affirming those of the trial court are binding on this Court, unless there is a clear showing that such findings are tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness or palpable error.[20] Considering that accused-appellant failed to show any arbitrariness, palpable error, or capriciousness on the findings of fact of the trial and appellate courts, these findings deserve great weight and are deemed conclusive and binding. Besides, an assiduous review of the records at hand reveals that the CA did not err in affirming accused-appellant's conviction.

GR No. 206912

2014-09-10

PEOPLE v. DEMOSTHENES BONTUYAN

PEREZ, J.

Certainly, accused-appellant was found to have in his possession 7.04 grams of shabu and some drug paraphernalia. There was nothing in the records showing that he had authority to possess them. And jurisprudence is rich in pronouncing that mere possession of a prohibited drug constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of any satisfactory explanation.[23] Worst, accused-appellant likewise failed to present contrary evidence to rebut his possession of the shabu and drug paraphernalia; hence, his guilt was indeed established beyond reasonable doubt.

GR No. 199898

2014-09-03

PEOPLE v. LEO DE LA TRINIDAD Y OBALLES

PEREZ, J.

In the prosecution of illegal possession of regulated or prohibited drugs, the following elements must be established: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified to be prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.[37] As correctly ruled by the CA, these elements were duly established by the prosecution. Jurisprudence is consistent in that mere possession of a prohibited drug constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of any satisfactory explanation.[38]

GR No. 191396

2013-04-17

PEOPLE v. MARILYN AGUILAR Y MANZANILLO

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Aside from the shabu Aguilar sold to PO2 Medrano, another sachet of shabu was recovered in her possession. Mere possession of a prohibited drug constitutes prima facie evidence of intent to possess, animus possidendi, sufficient to convict an accused absent a satisfactory explanation of such possession. The burden of evidence, thus, is shifted to the accused to explain the absence of intent to possess.[30] Aguilar miserably failed to discharge such burden.

GR No. 189843

2013-03-20

PEOPLE v. ZENAIDA SORIANO y USI

PEREZ, J.

And, absent a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof of tampering with the evidence, the presumption that the integrity of the evidence had been preserved lies.[29] The case of People v. Quiamanlon[30] is instructive on this point: x x x 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. 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.[31] (Citations omitted)

GR No. 187736

2012-02-08

PEOPLE v. FLORDELIZA ARRIOLA Y DE LARA

MENDOZA, J.

The position of Arriola that the prosecution failed to discuss in detail the different links in the chain as to the transfer of hands of the evidence will not necessarily render said evidence to be incompetent to convict Arriola for the crime of sale of illegal drugs. It must be remembered that testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.[24] As such, what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items.[25] 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. Besides, all that Arriola did in her supplemental brief was make a general allegation that prosecution failed to observe the chain of custody rule without pinpointing the exact link or links that may have been compromised to bring doubt to the integrity of the evidence.

GR No. 195005

2011-09-12

ROSANA ASIATICO Y STA. MARIA v. PEOPLE

VELASCO JR., J.

In resolving the issues, Rosana asks Us to delve into the factual matters of the case. Settled is the rule that factual findings of the appellate court affirming those of the trial court are binding on this Court, unless there is a clear showing that such findings are tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness or palpable error.[14] Since Rosana failed to show any arbitrariness, palpable error or capriciousness on the findings of fact of the trial and appellate courts, these findings deserve great weight and are deemed conclusive and binding. Besides, an assiduous review of the records at hand shows that the CA did not err in affirming Rosana's conviction.

GR No. 183676

2011-06-22

RUEL AMPATUAN 'ALIAS RUEL v. PEOPLE

PEREZ, J.

Indeed, in every prosecution for illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the presentation in evidence of the seized drug, as an integral part of the corpus delicti, is most material. Thus, it is vital that the identity of the prohibited drug be proved with moral certainty. The fact that the substance bought or seized during the buy-bust operation is the same item offered in court as exhibit must also be established with the same degree of certitude. It is in this respect that the chain of custody requirement performs its function. It ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. [36]

GR No. 194836

2011-06-15

PEOPLE v. ARNOLD CASTRO Y YANGA

VELASCO JR., J.

Undeniably, in every prosecution for illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the presentation in evidence of the seized drug, as an integral part of the corpus delicti, is most material. [54] It is therefore vital that the identity of the prohibited drug be proved with moral certainty. [55] Also, the fact that the substance bought or seized during the buy-bust operation is the same item offered in court as exhibit must be established with the same degree of certitude. [56] It is in this respect that the chain of custody requirement performs its function, that is, to ensure that all unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. [57]

GR No. 194836

2011-06-15

PEOPLE v. ARNOLD CASTRO Y YANGA

VELASCO JR., J.

Undeniably, in every prosecution for illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the presentation in evidence of the seized drug, as an integral part of the corpus delicti, is most material. [54] It is therefore vital that the identity of the prohibited drug be proved with moral certainty. [55] Also, the fact that the substance bought or seized during the buy-bust operation is the same item offered in court as exhibit must be established with the same degree of certitude. [56] It is in this respect that the chain of custody requirement performs its function, that is, to ensure that all unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. [57]

GR No. 194836

2011-06-15

PEOPLE v. ARNOLD CASTRO Y YANGA

VELASCO JR., J.

Undeniably, in every prosecution for illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the presentation in evidence of the seized drug, as an integral part of the corpus delicti, is most material. [54] It is therefore vital that the identity of the prohibited drug be proved with moral certainty. [55] Also, the fact that the substance bought or seized during the buy-bust operation is the same item offered in court as exhibit must be established with the same degree of certitude. [56] It is in this respect that the chain of custody requirement performs its function, that is, to ensure that all unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. [57]

GR No. 194836

2011-06-15

PEOPLE v. ARNOLD CASTRO Y YANGA

VELASCO JR., J.

Undeniably, in every prosecution for illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the presentation in evidence of the seized drug, as an integral part of the corpus delicti, is most material. [54] It is therefore vital that the identity of the prohibited drug be proved with moral certainty. [55] Also, the fact that the substance bought or seized during the buy-bust operation is the same item offered in court as exhibit must be established with the same degree of certitude. [56] It is in this respect that the chain of custody requirement performs its function, that is, to ensure that all unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. [57]

GR No. 194836

2011-06-15

PEOPLE v. ARNOLD CASTRO Y YANGA

VELASCO JR., J.

Admittedly, testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain. [59] Nonetheless, what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items. [60]

GR No. 194836

2011-06-15

PEOPLE v. ARNOLD CASTRO Y YANGA

VELASCO JR., J.

Admittedly, testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain. [59] Nonetheless, what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items. [60]

GR No. 194836

2011-06-15

PEOPLE v. ARNOLD CASTRO Y YANGA

VELASCO JR., J.

Based on the above-quoted provision, the custodial chain rule is not to be rigorously applied provided "the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team". [61] Consequently, the purported procedural infirmities harped on by Castro concerning the custody, photographing, inventory and marking of the seized items do not in any manner affect the prosecution of the instant case. Neither do the alleged infirmities render Castro's arrest illegal nor the items seized from him inadmissible.

GR No. 194836

2011-06-15

PEOPLE v. ARNOLD CASTRO Y YANGA

VELASCO JR., J.

We disagree. In the recent case of People v. Quiamanlon, this Court held that "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." [63]

GR No. 194836

2011-06-15

PEOPLE v. ARNOLD CASTRO Y YANGA

VELASCO JR., J.

Pertinently, possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of a satisfactory explanation of such possession. [72] As a consequence, the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi. [73] In the case at bar, Castro miserably failed to discharge such burden.

GR No. 194836

2011-06-15

PEOPLE v. ARNOLD CASTRO Y YANGA

VELASCO JR., J.

Pertinently, possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of a satisfactory explanation of such possession. [72] As a consequence, the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi. [73] In the case at bar, Castro miserably failed to discharge such burden.

	GR No. 207988 2015-03-11	PEOPLE v. BRIAN MERCADO Y SARMIENTO PEREZ, J.
Undoubtedly, the prosecution had indeed established that there was a buy-bust operation[22] showing that accused-appellant sold and delivered the shabu for value to PO3 Ramon Galvez (PO3 Galvez), the poseur-buyer. PO3 Galvez himself testified that there was an actual exchange of the marked-money and the prohibited drug. Likewise, accused-appellant was fully aware that what he was selling was illegal and prohibited considering that when PO3 Galvez told him, "pre, pa-iskor naman," the former immediately answered, "magkano?," then when the poseur-buyer replied, "dos lang," it resulted to the production of three (3) pieces of plastic sachets from accused-appellant's pocket. Thereafter, the corpus delicti or the subject drug was seized, marked, and subsequently identified as a prohibited drug. Note that there was nothing in the records showing that he had authority to possess them. Jurisprudence had pronounced repeatedly that mere possession of a prohibited drug constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of any satisfactory explanation.[23] Above all, accused-appellant likewise failed to present contrary evidence to rebut his possession of the shabu. Taken collectively, the illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs by accused-appellant were indeed established beyond reasonable doubt.
	GR No. 207635 2015-02-18	PEOPLE v. DANTE DELA PEÑA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
To sum up, from the time the illegal drugs were seized from Dela Peña and Delima, up to their delivery to the crime laboratory for chemical examination, until their presentation in evidence before the RTC, the integrity of said items was preserved. No evidence was adduced by the defense showing that they were tainted in any manner. Verily, 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.[66] Dela Peña and Delima failed to discharge their burden of proving that the evidence was tampered to overcome the presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers and the presumption that the public officers properly discharged their duties.[67]
	GR No. 206912 2014-09-10	PEOPLE v. DEMOSTHENES BONTUYAN PEREZ, J.
In resolving the issue, accused-appellant seeks before this Court to delve into the factual matters of the case. However, settled is the rule that factual findings of the appellate court affirming those of the trial court are binding on this Court, unless there is a clear showing that such findings are tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness or palpable error.[20] Considering that accused-appellant failed to show any arbitrariness, palpable error, or capriciousness on the findings of fact of the trial and appellate courts, these findings deserve great weight and are deemed conclusive and binding. Besides, an assiduous review of the records at hand reveals that the CA did not err in affirming accused-appellant's conviction.
	GR No. 206912 2014-09-10	PEOPLE v. DEMOSTHENES BONTUYAN PEREZ, J.
Certainly, accused-appellant was found to have in his possession 7.04 grams of shabu and some drug paraphernalia. There was nothing in the records showing that he had authority to possess them. And jurisprudence is rich in pronouncing that mere possession of a prohibited drug constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of any satisfactory explanation.[23] Worst, accused-appellant likewise failed to present contrary evidence to rebut his possession of the shabu and drug paraphernalia; hence, his guilt was indeed established beyond reasonable doubt.
	GR No. 199898 2014-09-03	PEOPLE v. LEO DE LA TRINIDAD Y OBALLES PEREZ, J.
In the prosecution of illegal possession of regulated or prohibited drugs, the following elements must be established: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified to be prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.[37] As correctly ruled by the CA, these elements were duly established by the prosecution. Jurisprudence is consistent in that mere possession of a prohibited drug constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of any satisfactory explanation.[38]
	GR No. 191396 2013-04-17	PEOPLE v. MARILYN AGUILAR Y MANZANILLO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Aside from the shabu Aguilar sold to PO2 Medrano, another sachet of shabu was recovered in her possession. Mere possession of a prohibited drug constitutes prima facie evidence of intent to possess, animus possidendi, sufficient to convict an accused absent a satisfactory explanation of such possession. The burden of evidence, thus, is shifted to the accused to explain the absence of intent to possess.[30] Aguilar miserably failed to discharge such burden.
	GR No. 189843 2013-03-20	PEOPLE v. ZENAIDA SORIANO y USI PEREZ, J.
And, absent a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof of tampering with the evidence, the presumption that the integrity of the evidence had been preserved lies.[29] The case of People v. Quiamanlon[30] is instructive on this point: x x x 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. 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.[31] (Citations omitted)
	GR No. 187736 2012-02-08	PEOPLE v. FLORDELIZA ARRIOLA Y DE LARA MENDOZA, J.
The position of Arriola that the prosecution failed to discuss in detail the different links in the chain as to the transfer of hands of the evidence will not necessarily render said evidence to be incompetent to convict Arriola for the crime of sale of illegal drugs. It must be remembered that testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.[24] As such, what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items.[25] 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. Besides, all that Arriola did in her supplemental brief was make a general allegation that prosecution failed to observe the chain of custody rule without pinpointing the exact link or links that may have been compromised to bring doubt to the integrity of the evidence.
	GR No. 195005 2011-09-12	ROSANA ASIATICO Y STA. MARIA v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
In resolving the issues, Rosana asks Us to delve into the factual matters of the case. Settled is the rule that factual findings of the appellate court affirming those of the trial court are binding on this Court, unless there is a clear showing that such findings are tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness or palpable error.[14] Since Rosana failed to show any arbitrariness, palpable error or capriciousness on the findings of fact of the trial and appellate courts, these findings deserve great weight and are deemed conclusive and binding. Besides, an assiduous review of the records at hand shows that the CA did not err in affirming Rosana's conviction.
	GR No. 183676 2011-06-22	RUEL AMPATUAN 'ALIAS RUEL v. PEOPLE PEREZ, J.
Indeed, in every prosecution for illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the presentation in evidence of the seized drug, as an integral part of the corpus delicti, is most material. Thus, it is vital that the identity of the prohibited drug be proved with moral certainty. The fact that the substance bought or seized during the buy-bust operation is the same item offered in court as exhibit must also be established with the same degree of certitude. It is in this respect that the chain of custody requirement performs its function. It ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. [36]
	GR No. 194836 2011-06-15	PEOPLE v. ARNOLD CASTRO Y YANGA VELASCO JR., J.
Undeniably, in every prosecution for illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the presentation in evidence of the seized drug, as an integral part of the corpus delicti, is most material. [54] It is therefore vital that the identity of the prohibited drug be proved with moral certainty. [55] Also, the fact that the substance bought or seized during the buy-bust operation is the same item offered in court as exhibit must be established with the same degree of certitude. [56] It is in this respect that the chain of custody requirement performs its function, that is, to ensure that all unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. [57]
	GR No. 194836 2011-06-15	PEOPLE v. ARNOLD CASTRO Y YANGA VELASCO JR., J.
Undeniably, in every prosecution for illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the presentation in evidence of the seized drug, as an integral part of the corpus delicti, is most material. [54] It is therefore vital that the identity of the prohibited drug be proved with moral certainty. [55] Also, the fact that the substance bought or seized during the buy-bust operation is the same item offered in court as exhibit must be established with the same degree of certitude. [56] It is in this respect that the chain of custody requirement performs its function, that is, to ensure that all unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. [57]
	GR No. 194836 2011-06-15	PEOPLE v. ARNOLD CASTRO Y YANGA VELASCO JR., J.
Undeniably, in every prosecution for illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the presentation in evidence of the seized drug, as an integral part of the corpus delicti, is most material. [54] It is therefore vital that the identity of the prohibited drug be proved with moral certainty. [55] Also, the fact that the substance bought or seized during the buy-bust operation is the same item offered in court as exhibit must be established with the same degree of certitude. [56] It is in this respect that the chain of custody requirement performs its function, that is, to ensure that all unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. [57]
	GR No. 194836 2011-06-15	PEOPLE v. ARNOLD CASTRO Y YANGA VELASCO JR., J.
Undeniably, in every prosecution for illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the presentation in evidence of the seized drug, as an integral part of the corpus delicti, is most material. [54] It is therefore vital that the identity of the prohibited drug be proved with moral certainty. [55] Also, the fact that the substance bought or seized during the buy-bust operation is the same item offered in court as exhibit must be established with the same degree of certitude. [56] It is in this respect that the chain of custody requirement performs its function, that is, to ensure that all unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. [57]
	GR No. 194836 2011-06-15	PEOPLE v. ARNOLD CASTRO Y YANGA VELASCO JR., J.
Admittedly, testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain. [59] Nonetheless, what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items. [60]
	GR No. 194836 2011-06-15	PEOPLE v. ARNOLD CASTRO Y YANGA VELASCO JR., J.
Admittedly, testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain. [59] Nonetheless, what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items. [60]
	GR No. 194836 2011-06-15	PEOPLE v. ARNOLD CASTRO Y YANGA VELASCO JR., J.
Based on the above-quoted provision, the custodial chain rule is not to be rigorously applied provided "the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team". [61] Consequently, the purported procedural infirmities harped on by Castro concerning the custody, photographing, inventory and marking of the seized items do not in any manner affect the prosecution of the instant case. Neither do the alleged infirmities render Castro's arrest illegal nor the items seized from him inadmissible.
	GR No. 194836 2011-06-15	PEOPLE v. ARNOLD CASTRO Y YANGA VELASCO JR., J.
We disagree. In the recent case of People v. Quiamanlon, this Court held that "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." [63]
	GR No. 194836 2011-06-15	PEOPLE v. ARNOLD CASTRO Y YANGA VELASCO JR., J.
Pertinently, possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of a satisfactory explanation of such possession. [72] As a consequence, the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi. [73] In the case at bar, Castro miserably failed to discharge such burden.
	GR No. 194836 2011-06-15	PEOPLE v. ARNOLD CASTRO Y YANGA VELASCO JR., J.
Pertinently, possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of a satisfactory explanation of such possession. [72] As a consequence, the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi. [73] In the case at bar, Castro miserably failed to discharge such burden.

PEOPLE v. NENE QUIAMANLON Y MALOG