Lawyerly

GR No. 200877

2014-11-12

PEREZ, J.

While this Court recognizes that non-compliance by the buy-bust team with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 is not fatal as long as there is a justifiable ground therefor, for and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team, these conditions, however, were not met in the present case.[30] Despite of all the aforesaid major lapses, the prosecution neither offered any explanation why the procedure was not followed nor mentioned any justifiable ground for failing to observe the rule. In People v. Ancheta,[31] this Court pronounced that when there is gross disregard of the procedural safeguards set forth in Republic Act No. 9165, serious uncertainty is generated as to the identity of the seized items that the prosecution presented in evidence. Such doubt cannot be remedied by merely invoking the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties for a gross, systematic, or deliberate disregard of the procedural safeguards effectively produces an irregularity in the performance of official duties.[32] Also in People v. Ancheta, this Court explained that: Indeed, it is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items that is of utmost importance in determining the admissibility of the evidence presented in court, especially in cases of buy-bust operations. That is why Congress saw fit to fashion a detailed procedure in order to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items would not be compromised. The marking of the seized items was only a piece in a detailed set of procedural safeguards embodied in [Republic Act No. 9165]. If the arresting officers were unable to comply with the other requirements, they were under obligation to explain why the procedure was not followed and prove that the reason provided a justifiable ground. Otherwise, the requisites under the law would merely be fancy ornaments that may or may not be disregarded by the arresting officers at their own convenience.[33] (Emphasis supplied).

GR No. 205821

2014-10-01

PEOPLE v. GARRY DELA CRUZ Y DE GUZMAN

LEONEN, J.

On the other hand, in prosecutions for illegal possession of a dangerous drug, it must be shown that (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. Similarly, in this case, the evidence of the corpus delicti must be established beyond reasonable doubt.[21]

GR No. 205821

2014-10-01

PEOPLE v. GARRY DELA CRUZ Y DE GUZMAN

LEONEN, J.

As this court declared in People v. Morales, "failure to comply with Paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 implie[s] a concomitant failure on the part of the prosecution to establish the identity of the corpus delicti."[23] It "produce[s] doubts as to the origins of the [seized paraphernalia]."[24]

GR No. 207992

2014-08-11

PEOPLE v. ROBERTO HOLGADO Y DELA CRUZ

LEONEN, J.

The elements that must be established to sustain convictions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs are settled. In People v. Morales,[24] this court stated: In actions involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must first be 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.[25]

GR No. 207992

2014-08-11

PEOPLE v. ROBERTO HOLGADO Y DELA CRUZ

LEONEN, J.

As this court declared in People v. Morales, "failure to comply with Paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 implie[s] a concomitant failure on the part of the prosecution to establish the identity of the corpus delicti."[26] It "produce[s] doubts as to the origins of the [seized paraphernalia]."[27]

GR No. 203028

2014-01-15

PEOPLE v. JOSELITO BERAN Y ZAPANTA

REYES, J.

It is well-settled that in the prosecution of cases involving the illegal sale or illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the evidence of the corpus delicti, which is the dangerous drug itself, must be independently established beyond reasonable doubt.[18] In People v. Pagaduan,[19] we ruled that proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal prosecution for the sale of illegal drugs demands that unwavering exactitude be observed in establishing the corpus delicti, the body of the crime whose core is the confiscated illicit drug.[20] The case of People v. Tan,[21] cited in People of the Philippines v. Datu Not Abdul,[22] elucidates and reminds us why: "By the very nature of anti-narcotics operations, the need for entrapment procedures, the use of shady characters as informants, the ease with which sticks of marijuana or grams of heroin can be planted in pockets or hands of unsuspecting provincial hicks, and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals, the possibility of abuse is great." Thus, the courts have been exhorted to be extra vigilant in trying drug cases lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses. Needless to state, the lower court should have exercised the utmost diligence and prudence in deliberating upon accused-appellants' guilt. It should have given more serious consideration to the pros and cons of the evidence offered by both the defense and the State and many loose ends should have been settled by the trial court in determining the merits of the present case.

GR No. 202709

2013-07-03

PEOPLE

ABAD, J.

Still, jurisprudence has established a rare exception with respect to the first required link immediate seizure and marking of the seized items in the presence of the accused and others[20] namely, that (a) there must be justifiable grounds for non-compliance with the procedures; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.

GR No. 188024

2013-06-05

RODRIGO RONTOS Y DELA TORRE v. PEOPLE

SERENO, C.J.

We cannot, in good conscience, affirm the conviction of petitioner for possession of illegal drugs if the police officer charged with the preservation of the evidence cannot even be certain in the identification of the envelope that was presented in court. As held in Dolera v. People,[36] there also exists in the present case a reasonable likelihood of substitution, in that the two plastic sachets that tested positive for shabu and were presented in court were not the items allegedly seized from petitioner. This possibility of substitution is fatal for the prosecution,[37] for there is then a failure to prove the identity of the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt.[38]

GR No. 177191

2011-05-30

MICHAEL SAN JUAN Y CRUZ v. PEOPLE

NACHURA, J.

required by law, the absence of which is fatal to its cause. In fine, the identity of the corpus delicti in this case was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. There was an unexplained break in the chain of custody, fatal to the prosecution's case.[42] WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the Decision dated December 21, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 00180, and ACQUITS petitioner Michael San Juan y Cruz for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable

GR No. 179029

2010-08-09

PEOPLE v. FELIMON PAGADUAN Y TAMAYO

BRION, J.

In several cases, we have emphasized the importance of compliance with the prescribed procedure in the custody and disposition of the seized drugs. We have repeatedly declared that the deviation from the standard procedure dismally compromises the integrity of the evidence. In People v. Morales,[31] we acquitted the accused for failure of the buy-bust team to photograph and inventory the seized items, without giving any justifiable ground for the non-observance of the required procedures. People v. Garcia[32] likewise resulted in an acquittal because no physical inventory was ever made, and no photograph of the seized items was taken under the circumstances required by R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rules. In Bondad, Jr. v. People,[33] we also acquitted the accused for the failure of the police to conduct an inventory and to photograph the seized items, without justifiable grounds.

GR No. 178202

2010-05-14

PEOPLE v. NORMAN SITCO

VELASCO JR., J.

The imperative of proof beyond reasonable doubt has a vital role in our criminal justice system, the accused, during a criminal prosecution, having a stake interest of immense importance, both because of the possibility that he may lose his freedom if convicted and because of the certainty that his conviction will leave a permanent stain on his reputation and name.[18] As articulated in Rabanal v. People: Law and jurisprudence demand proof beyond reasonable doubt before any person may be deprived of his life, liberty, or even property. Enshrined in the Bill of Rights is the right of the petitioner to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and to overcome the presumption, nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt must be established by the prosecution. The constitutional presumption of innocence requires courts to take "a more than casual consideration" of every circumstances or doubt proving the innocence of petitioner.[19] (Emphasis added.)

	GR No. 200877 2014-11-12	PEOPLE v. CHARVE JOHN LAGAHIT PEREZ, J.
While this Court recognizes that non-compliance by the buy-bust team with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 is not fatal as long as there is a justifiable ground therefor, for and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team, these conditions, however, were not met in the present case.[30] Despite of all the aforesaid major lapses, the prosecution neither offered any explanation why the procedure was not followed nor mentioned any justifiable ground for failing to observe the rule. In People v. Ancheta,[31] this Court pronounced that when there is gross disregard of the procedural safeguards set forth in Republic Act No. 9165, serious uncertainty is generated as to the identity of the seized items that the prosecution presented in evidence. Such doubt cannot be remedied by merely invoking the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties for a gross, systematic, or deliberate disregard of the procedural safeguards effectively produces an irregularity in the performance of official duties.[32] Also in People v. Ancheta, this Court explained that: Indeed, it is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items that is of utmost importance in determining the admissibility of the evidence presented in court, especially in cases of buy-bust operations. That is why Congress saw fit to fashion a detailed procedure in order to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items would not be compromised. The marking of the seized items was only a piece in a detailed set of procedural safeguards embodied in [Republic Act No. 9165]. If the arresting officers were unable to comply with the other requirements, they were under obligation to explain why the procedure was not followed and prove that the reason provided a justifiable ground. Otherwise, the requisites under the law would merely be fancy ornaments that may or may not be disregarded by the arresting officers at their own convenience.[33] (Emphasis supplied).
	GR No. 205821 2014-10-01	PEOPLE v. GARRY DELA CRUZ Y DE GUZMAN LEONEN, J.
On the other hand, in prosecutions for illegal possession of a dangerous drug, it must be shown that (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. Similarly, in this case, the evidence of the corpus delicti must be established beyond reasonable doubt.[21]
	GR No. 205821 2014-10-01	PEOPLE v. GARRY DELA CRUZ Y DE GUZMAN LEONEN, J.
As this court declared in People v. Morales, "failure to comply with Paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 implie[s] a concomitant failure on the part of the prosecution to establish the identity of the corpus delicti."[23] It "produce[s] doubts as to the origins of the [seized paraphernalia]."[24]
	GR No. 207992 2014-08-11	PEOPLE v. ROBERTO HOLGADO Y DELA CRUZ LEONEN, J.
The elements that must be established to sustain convictions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs are settled. In People v. Morales,[24] this court stated: In actions involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must first be 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.[25]
	GR No. 207992 2014-08-11	PEOPLE v. ROBERTO HOLGADO Y DELA CRUZ LEONEN, J.
As this court declared in People v. Morales, "failure to comply with Paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 implie[s] a concomitant failure on the part of the prosecution to establish the identity of the corpus delicti."[26] It "produce[s] doubts as to the origins of the [seized paraphernalia]."[27]
	GR No. 203028 2014-01-15	PEOPLE v. JOSELITO BERAN Y ZAPANTA REYES, J.
It is well-settled that in the prosecution of cases involving the illegal sale or illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the evidence of the corpus delicti, which is the dangerous drug itself, must be independently established beyond reasonable doubt.[18] In People v. Pagaduan,[19] we ruled that proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal prosecution for the sale of illegal drugs demands that unwavering exactitude be observed in establishing the corpus delicti, the body of the crime whose core is the confiscated illicit drug.[20] The case of People v. Tan,[21] cited in People of the Philippines v. Datu Not Abdul,[22] elucidates and reminds us why: "By the very nature of anti-narcotics operations, the need for entrapment procedures, the use of shady characters as informants, the ease with which sticks of marijuana or grams of heroin can be planted in pockets or hands of unsuspecting provincial hicks, and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals, the possibility of abuse is great." Thus, the courts have been exhorted to be extra vigilant in trying drug cases lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses. Needless to state, the lower court should have exercised the utmost diligence and prudence in deliberating upon accused-appellants' guilt. It should have given more serious consideration to the pros and cons of the evidence offered by both the defense and the State and many loose ends should have been settled by the trial court in determining the merits of the present case.
	GR No. 202709 2013-07-03	PEOPLE ABAD, J.
Still, jurisprudence has established a rare exception with respect to the first required link immediate seizure and marking of the seized items in the presence of the accused and others[20] namely, that (a) there must be justifiable grounds for non-compliance with the procedures; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.
	GR No. 188024 2013-06-05	RODRIGO RONTOS Y DELA TORRE v. PEOPLE SERENO, C.J.
We cannot, in good conscience, affirm the conviction of petitioner for possession of illegal drugs if the police officer charged with the preservation of the evidence cannot even be certain in the identification of the envelope that was presented in court. As held in Dolera v. People,[36] there also exists in the present case a reasonable likelihood of substitution, in that the two plastic sachets that tested positive for shabu and were presented in court were not the items allegedly seized from petitioner. This possibility of substitution is fatal for the prosecution,[37] for there is then a failure to prove the identity of the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt.[38]
	GR No. 177191 2011-05-30	MICHAEL SAN JUAN Y CRUZ v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
required by law, the absence of which is fatal to its cause. In fine, the identity of the corpus delicti in this case was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. There was an unexplained break in the chain of custody, fatal to the prosecution's case.[42] WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the Decision dated December 21, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 00180, and ACQUITS petitioner Michael San Juan y Cruz for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
	GR No. 179029 2010-08-09	PEOPLE v. FELIMON PAGADUAN Y TAMAYO BRION, J.
In several cases, we have emphasized the importance of compliance with the prescribed procedure in the custody and disposition of the seized drugs. We have repeatedly declared that the deviation from the standard procedure dismally compromises the integrity of the evidence. In People v. Morales,[31] we acquitted the accused for failure of the buy-bust team to photograph and inventory the seized items, without giving any justifiable ground for the non-observance of the required procedures. People v. Garcia[32] likewise resulted in an acquittal because no physical inventory was ever made, and no photograph of the seized items was taken under the circumstances required by R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rules. In Bondad, Jr. v. People,[33] we also acquitted the accused for the failure of the police to conduct an inventory and to photograph the seized items, without justifiable grounds.
	GR No. 178202 2010-05-14	PEOPLE v. NORMAN SITCO VELASCO JR., J.
The imperative of proof beyond reasonable doubt has a vital role in our criminal justice system, the accused, during a criminal prosecution, having a stake interest of immense importance, both because of the possibility that he may lose his freedom if convicted and because of the certainty that his conviction will leave a permanent stain on his reputation and name.[18] As articulated in Rabanal v. People: Law and jurisprudence demand proof beyond reasonable doubt before any person may be deprived of his life, liberty, or even property. Enshrined in the Bill of Rights is the right of the petitioner to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and to overcome the presumption, nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt must be established by the prosecution. The constitutional presumption of innocence requires courts to take "a more than casual consideration" of every circumstances or doubt proving the innocence of petitioner.[19] (Emphasis added.)

PEOPLE v. ROLDAN MORALES Y MIDARASA