Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ZAIDA KAMAD Y AMBING

This case has been cited 26 times or more.

	GR No. 210841 2015-10-14	PEOPLE v. ENRICO MIRONDO Y IZON MENDOZA, J.
Settled is the rule that an appeal in a criminal case throws the whole records of the case open for review and it is the duty of the appellate court to correct, cite and appreciate errors that may be found in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned.[12] Given the unique nature of an appeal in a criminal case, an examination of the entire records of the case may be explored for the purpose of arriving at a correct conclusion as the law and justice dictate.
	GR No. 200877 2014-11-12	PEOPLE v. CHARVE JOHN LAGAHIT PEREZ, J.
In People v. Gatlabayan[24] citing People v. Kamad,[25] this Court enumerated the links that the prosecution must establish in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation to be as follows: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court.
	GR No. 205227 2014-04-07	PEOPLE v. MARCO P. ALEJANDRO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In the case of People v. Kamad,[31] the Court enumerated the links that the prosecution must establish in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation to be as follows: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.[32]
	GR No. 193768 2014-03-05	PEOPLE v. JERRY CARANTO Y PROPETA PEREZ, J.
This Court previously held[26] that the following links must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust operation: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.
	GR No. 190621 2014-02-10	PEOPLE v. GLENN SALVADOR Y BALVERDE DEL CASTILLO, J.
There are links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation, namely: "first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and, fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court."[36]
	GR No. 188653 2014-01-29	LITO LOPEZ v. PEOPLE PEREZ, J.
We ruled in People v. Kamad[26] that the links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation are: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.[27]
	GR No. 191071 2013-08-28	PEOPLE v. ROGELIA JARDINEL PEPINO-CONSULTA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The Court stated in People v. Kamad[34] that "[a]s a general rule, the trial court's findings of fact, especially when affirmed by the [Court of Appeals], are entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal. This rule, however, admits of exceptions and does not apply where facts of weight and substance with direct and material bearing on the final outcome of the case have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied." As will be hereinafter discussed, the above exception holds true in the present case.
	GR No. 182417 2013-04-03	PEOPLE v. ALBERTO GONZALES Y SANTOS BERSAMIN, J.
To secure a conviction of the accused charged with the illegal sale of dangerous drugs as defined and punished by Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the State must establish the concurrence of the following elements, namely: (a) that the transaction or sale took place between the accused and the poseur buyer; and (b) that the dangerous drugs subject of the transaction or sale is presented in court as evidence of the corpus delicti.[11]
	GR No. 190343 2013-02-06	PEOPLE v. SAIBEN LANGCUA Y DAIMLA PEREZ, J.
In the case of People v. Kamad,[47] the Court had the opportunity to enumerate the different links that the prosecution must prove in order to establish the chain of custody in a buy-bust operation, namely: First, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer;
	GR No. 187496 2013-02-06	PEOPLE v. MALIK MANALAO Y ALAUYA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In People v. Llanita and Buar,[30] this Court elucidated on the concept of "chain of custody" and, quoting People v. Kamad,[31] enumerated the different links that must be proven to establish it: "Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody was made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.
	GR No. 189277 2012-12-05	PEOPLE v. RICARDO REMIGIO Y ZAPANTA PEREZ, J.
The case of People v. Kamad[71] enumerates the different links that the prosecution must prove in order to establish the chain of custody in a buy-bust operation, namely: First, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer;
	GR No. 189817 2012-10-03	PEOPLE v. REYNA BATALUNA LLANITA PEREZ, J.
In the case of People v. Kamad,[59] the Court had the opportunity to enumerate the different links that the prosecution must prove in order to establish the chain of custody in a buy-bust operation, namely: First, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer;
	GR No. 200951 2012-09-05	PEOPLE v. JOSE ALMODIEL CARPIO, J.
In People v. Kamad,[46] the Court ruled that the links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation are: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.
	GR No. 194945 2012-07-30	PEOPLE v. ALEX WATAMAMA Y ESIL VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The prosecution failed to show how the seized evidence changed hands from the time PO1 Vargas turned it over to the investigator up to the time they were presented in court as evidence. The prosecution did not adduce evidence on how the evidence was handled or stored before its presentation at the trial. It is not enough to rely merely on the testimony of PO1 Vargas who stated that she turned the seized item over to the investigator who then prepared the letter of request for examination. There was no evidence on how PO2 Ortiz came into possession of the shabu and how he delivered the seized item for examination to the PNP Crime Laboratory. Neither was there any evidence how it was secured from tampering. Instructive is the case of People v. Kamad,[11] where the Court enumerated the different links that the prosecution must endeavor to establish with respect to the chain of custody in a buy-bust operation: first, the seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turn over of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turn over by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turn over and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court.
	GR No. 185460 2012-07-25	EDWIN FAJARDO PEREZ, J.
The second link in the chain of custody constitutes custody and possession of the shabu prior, during and immediately after the police investigation and how the shabu was stored, preserved, labeled and recorded from the time of its seizure up to its receipt by the crime laboratory.[28] PO1 Tuscano merely identified PO2 Tugo as the one who brought the confiscated items to the crime laboratory. But it was not clear whether it was PO2 Tugo who received the seized items from the police officers who arrived at the police station. In the Joint Affidavit of Arrest, the police officers stated "that all the recovered evidence were confiscated and properly handled and transported to this Station for safekeeping"[29] without stating the particulars. Moreover, no details were given as to who was in custody of the seized items while in transit. Thus, the reliability, nay existence of the second link, had clearly been compromised.
	GR No. 187736 2012-02-08	PEOPLE v. FLORDELIZA ARRIOLA Y DE LARA MENDOZA, J.
Further, in the case of People v. Kamad,[19] the Court enumerated therein the different links that the prosecution must endeavor to establish with respect to the chain of custody in a buy-bust operation, namely: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court.
	GR No. 192261 2011-11-16	PEOPLE v. GARET SALCENA Y VICTORINO MENDOZA, J.
In People v. Kamad,[35] the Court enumerated the links that the prosecution must establish in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation to be as follows: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.
	GR No. 186467 2011-07-13	PEOPLE v. JAIME GATLABAYAN Y BATARA MENDOZA, J.
In People v. Kamad, [19] the Court enumerated the links that the prosecution must establish in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation to be as follows: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court.
	GR No. 189325 2011-06-15	PEOPLE v. TEOFILO RAGODON MARCELINO VELASCO JR., J.
In People v. Kamad, [25] We acknowledged that the following links must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation: "first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court."
	GR No. 187069 2010-10-20	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO MAGPAYO PEREZ, J.
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be duly established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place; and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.[26] Proof of the corpus delicti in a buy-bust situation requires evidence, not only that the transacted drugs actually exist, but evidence as well that the drugs seized and examined are the same drugs presented in court.[27]
	GR No. 179029 2010-08-09	PEOPLE v. FELIMON PAGADUAN Y TAMAYO BRION, J.
Strict compliance with the prescribed procedure is required because of the illegal drug's unique characteristic rendering it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise.[28] The records of the present case are bereft of evidence showing that the buy-bust team followed the outlined procedure despite its mandatory terms. The deficiency is patent from the following exchanges at the trial: PROSECUTOR [EMERSON TURINGAN]:
	GR No. 188905 2010-07-13	PEOPLE v. ROSE NANDI Y SALI MENDOZA, J.
The general rule is that passing judgment upon the credibility of witnesses is best left to the trial courts since the latter are in a better position to decide the question, having heard and observed the witnesses themselves during the trial. This rule, however, admits of exceptions such as when facts of weight and substance with direct and material bearing on the final outcome of the case have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied.[5]
	GR No. 183101 2010-07-06	PEOPLE v. NOEL CATENTAY ABAD, J.
The burden of the prosecution in a case of illegal sale of dangerous drugs is to prove (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller; (2) the sale of dangerous drugs; and (3) the existence of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.[14]
	GR No. 188976 2010-06-29	PEOPLE v. JAKAR MAPAN LE Y SUBA VELASCO JR., J.
To summarize, we ruled in People v. Camad,[16] that there are links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation, viz: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.
	GR No. 184595 2010-06-29	PEOPLE v. SAPIA ANDONGAN Y SANDIGANG CARPIO MORALES, J.
With the flawed evidence for the prosecution, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by the prosecution witness-police officer does not arise.[13]
	GR No. 172873 2010-03-19	PEOPLE v. ROLDAN MORALES Y MIDARASA DEL CASTILLO, J.
At the outset, we draw attention to the unique nature of an appeal in a criminal case: the appeal throws the whole case open for review and it is the duty of the appellate court to correct, cite and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned.[61] On the basis of such review, we find the present appeal meritorious.