This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-10-09 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| In drugs cases, the prosecution must show that the integrity of the corpus delicti has been preserved. This is crucial in drugs cases because the evidence involved the seized chemical is not readily identifiable by sight or touch and can easily be tampered with or substituted.[68] "Proof of the corpus delicti in a buy-bust situation requires not only the actual existence of the transacted drugs but also the certainty that the drugs examined and presented in court were the very ones seized. This is a condition sine qua non for conviction since drugs are the main subject of the illegal sale constituting the crime and their existence and identification must be proven for the crime to exist."[69] The flagrant lapses committed in handling the alleged confiscated drug in violation of the chain of custody requirement even effectively negate the presumption of regularity in the performance of the police officers' duties, as any taint of irregularity affects the whole performance and should make the presumption unavailable.[70] | |||||
|
2011-05-30 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| investigator to whom he turned them over, other than saying that he turned them over to the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Force (SAID/SOFT).[38] And there is no showing if that same investigator was the one who turned the drugs over to the forensic chemist, or if the forensic chemist whose name appears in the physical science report was the one who received them from that investigator, or where the drugs were kept for safekeeping after the chemical test was conducted up to the time they were presented in court. The prosecution failed to provide the details of these essential matters. Thus, this Court in People of the Philippines v. Elmer Peralta y de Guzman alias "Memeng,"[39] for the guidance of our public prosecutors, recommended questions that would aid the court in determining the innocence or guilt of the accused. Most importantly, this Court cannot close its eyes to the fact that instead of bringing the accused immediately to the Pasay City Police Headquarters, as required by law, the police officers opted to go to the Cityland Condominium in Makati City, bringing with them the car, | |||||
|
2010-07-06 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Early this year, this Court expounded on the requirement of proof of the existence of the prohibited drugs. The prosecution has to establish the integrity of the seized article in that it had been preserved from the time the same was seized from the accused to the time it was presented in evidence at the trial.[15] Here, the prosecution established through PO1 Quimson's testimony that he got the two sachets of white crystalline substances from Catentay and marked them with his initials. Since he testified that the sachets were heat-sealed and that he placed his initials on them, that would have been sufficient to ensure the integrity of the substances until they shall have reached the hands of the forensic chemist. | |||||
|
2010-07-06 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| In court, PO3 Quimson identified the sachets of shabu he got from Catentay. Instead of presenting PO2 Valdez, the parties stipulated (1) that he was a police officer; (2) that he was involved as arresting officer in the buy-bust operation; (3) that he recovered the buy-bust money from Catentay; and (4) that he can identify him and the buy-bust money used.[7] | |||||