This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2014-09-10 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Besides the fact that PO1 Tanggote failed to ascertain the identity of the seized substance, the prosecution also failed to establish how SPO1 Amacanim, the investing officer, and Chemist Madroño, the laboratory technician, preserved the integrity of the substance. The prosecution failed to establish the manner of handling, storage, labelling and recording of the substance from the time it was seized until it was offered as evidence in court as the substance contained unidentified markings and sealing.[17] Assuming that PO1 Tanggote's allegation that SPO1 Amacanim labeled the substance is truthful, SPO1 Amacanim and other officers who held custody of the substance should have been presented in the court to attest to such fact. Further, all other police officers who had custody of the substance, may it be briefly or otherwise, must be presented in court to attest to the allegation of PO1 Tanggote. Our ruling in People v. Habana,[18] is instructive: If the sealing of the seized substance has not been made, the prosecution would have to present every police officer, messenger, laboratory technician, and storage personnel, the entire chain of custody, no matter how briefly one's possession has been. Each of them has to testify that the substance, although unsealed, has not been tampered with or substituted while in his care.[19] | |||||
|
2013-06-17 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, it is of no moment that Forensic Chemist Alejandro De Guzman who conducted the laboratory examination was not presented as a witness. The non-presentation as witnesses of other persons who had custody of the illegal drugs is not a crucial point against the prosecution.[39] There is no requirement for the prosecution to present as witness in a drugs case every person who had something to do with the arrest of the accused and the seizure of the prohibited drugs from him.[40] To stress, the implementing rules are clear that non-compliance with the requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.[41] | |||||
|
2012-09-05 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The accused argues that SPO4 Arnaldo, SPO3 Alota and PO1 Monton should have testified in court. But in People v. Habana,[55] we held that there is no requirement for the prosecution to present as witness in a drugs case every person who had something to do with the arrest of the accused and the seizure of the prohibited drugs from him. The discretion on which witness to present in every case belongs to the prosecutor.[56] It is even possible to reach a conclusion of guilt on the basis of the testimony of a lone witness.[57] Furthermore, as aptly ruled by the CA, there was no need for other persons in the chain of custody to testify, since their testimonies would only corroborate that of PO2 Virtudazo. | |||||
|
2012-07-30 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| In all prosecutions for the violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, the existence of the prohibited drug has to be proved.[9] The chain of custody rule requires that testimony be presented about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was seized up to the time it is offered in evidence. To this end, the prosecution must ensure that the substance presented in court is the same substance seized from the accused. | |||||
|
2010-12-13 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| If the sealing of the seized substance has not been made, the prosecution would have to present every police officer, messenger, laboratory technician, and storage personnel, the entire chain of custody, no matter how briefly one's possession has been. Each of them has to testify that the substance, although unsealed, has not been tampered with or substituted while in his care.[29] | |||||
|
2010-09-08 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Chain of custody establishes the identity of the subject substance.[17] It requires that testimony be presented about every link in the chain, from the moment the item is seized up to the time it is offered in evidence.[18] When nagging doubts persist on whether the item confiscated is the same specimen examined and established to be prohibited drug,[19] there can be no crime of illegal possession of a prohibited drug. | |||||
|
2010-07-06 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| But, while Catentay stipulated that the forensic chemist examined the contents of the same plastic sachets that he personally received from the police, Catentay made no stipulation that the substance contained in the plastic sachets that were actually presented in court is the same substance that the forensic chemist examined and found positive for shabu. The Court is guided by its ruling in People v. Habana[17] which describes how the integrity of the substance seized from the accused might be preserved. Thus: Usually, the police officer who seizes the suspected substance turns it over to a supervising officer, who would then send it by courier to the police crime laboratory for testing. Since it is unavoidable that possession of the substance changes hand a number of times, it is imperative for the officer who seized the substance from the suspect to place his marking on its plastic container and seal the same, preferably with adhesive tape that cannot be removed without leaving a tear on the plastic container. At the trial, the officer can then identify the seized substance and the procedure he observed to preserve its integrity until it reaches the crime laboratory. | |||||