Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. SPO3 SANGKI ARA Y MIRASOL

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 194999 2015-02-09	PEOPLE v. GLORIA NEPOMUCENO Y PEDRAZA DEL CASTILLO, J.
All told, there is no reason to disturb the findings that appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 as well as the penalty imposed upon her. However, it must be added that appellant is not eligible for parole.[19]
	GR No. 197250 2013-07-17	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO “ANDY” SOMOZA Y HANDAYA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
This Court has already held in People v. Ambrosio[44] that the non-presentation of the entire amount of the marked money is not a mortal blow to the prosecution's case. It has also been held that the non-presentation of the marked money,[45] or the presentation of mere photocopies of the marked money,[46] does not render the buy-bust operation illegal or invalid. Nor is the presentation of the marked money material in the prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs as the omission to present the marked money may be overlooked as a peripheral matter.[47] As this Court ruled in People v. Ara[48]: In the prosecution for the sale of dangerous drugs, the absence of marked money does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution, as long as the sale of dangerous drugs is adequately proved and the drug subject of the transaction is presented before the court. x x x. (Citation omitted.)
	GR No. 189817 2012-10-03	PEOPLE v. REYNA BATALUNA LLANITA PEREZ, J.
Jurisprudence supports the acceptance of substantial compliance with the procedure on custody of evidence in drug cases. As held in People of the Philippines v. Ara:[71]
	GR No. 190342 2012-03-21	PEOPLE v. CIPRIANO CARDENAS Y GOFRERICA SERENO, J.
Under Section 5 of R.A. 9165, the elements that must be proven for the successful prosecution of the illegal sale of shabu are as follows: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and its payment.[23] The State has the burden of proving these elements and is obliged to present the corpus delicti in court to support a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[24]
	GR No. 188847 2011-01-31	PEOPLE v. RUFINO VICENTE VELASCO JR., J.
As previously held by this Court, Sec. 21 of RA 9165 need not be followed as an exact science. Non-compliance with Sec. 21 does not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible.[14] Non-compliance with the procedural requirements under RA 9165 and its IRR relative to the custody, photographing, and drug-testing of the apprehended persons is not a serious flaw that can render void the seizures and custody of drugs in a buy-bust operation.[15] We have thus emphasized that what is essential is "the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused."[16]
	GR No. 188900 2010-03-05	PEOPLE v. FERNANDO HABANA Y ORANTE ABAD, J.
While this Court recognizes substantial adherence to the requirements of R.A. 9165 and its implementing rules and regulations, not perfect adherence, is what is demanded of police officers attending to drugs cases,[25] still, such officers must present justifiable reason for their imperfect conduct and show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items had been preserved. Here, however, they failed to meet these conditions. The police officers offered no explanation for their failure to observe the chain of custody rule.