This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2014-06-04 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Jurisprudence indeed instructs that failure to observe strictly the above-quoted provision can be excused as long as (1) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers and (2) non-compliance was attended by justifiable grounds.[6] However, the prosecution in this case was unsuccessful in showing that there was no opportunity for tampering, contamination, substitution, nor alteration of the specimens submitted. On the contrary, there is a dearth of evidence to show that the evidence presented was well-preserved. The prosecution likewise failed to offer any justification on why the afore-quoted provision was not complied with. | |||||
|
2014-01-15 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Thus, in Almorfe, we stressed that for the above-saving clause to apply, the prosecution must explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses, and that the integrity and value of the seized evidence had nonetheless been preserved.[50] In People v. de Guzman,[51] we emphasized that the justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact, because the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist.[52] | |||||
|
2013-09-02 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| In People v. De Guzman,[38] this Court ruled:Accordingly, the failure to establish, through convincing proof, that the integrity of the seized items has been adequately preserved through an unbroken chain of custody is enough to engender reasonable doubt on the guilt of an accused. Reasonable doubt is that doubt engendered by an investigation of the whole proof and an inability after such investigation to let the mind rest upon the certainty of guilt. Absolute certainty of guilt is not demanded by the law to convict a person charged with a crime, but moral certainty is required as to every proposition of proof requisite to constitute the offense. A conviction cannot be sustained if there is a persistent doubt on the identity of the drug.[39] | |||||
|
2013-08-28 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In this case, the above presumption was undoubtedly overcome by evidence that the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation committed lapses in the seizure and handling of the allegedly seized plastic sachets of shabu. Even if accused-appellant failed to present evidence with respect to her defense of denial or the ill motive that impelled the police officers to falsely impute upon her the crime charged, the same is of no moment. The well-entrenched dictum in criminal law is that "[t]he evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own weight and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense."[46] If the prosecution cannot, to begin with, establish the guilt of accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt, the defense is not even required to adduce evidence. Thus, the presumption of innocence on the part of accused-appellant in this case must be upheld. | |||||
|
2012-04-25 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Lest the chain of custody rule be misunderstood, we reiterate that non-compliance with the prescribed procedural requirements does not necessarily render the seizure and custody of the items void and invalid; the seizure may still be held valid, provided that (a) there is a justifiable ground for the non-compliance, and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are shown to have been properly preserved.[47] These conditions, however, were not met in the present case as the prosecution did not even attempt to offer any justification for the failure of SPO4 Mendoza to follow the prescribed procedures in the handling of the seized items. As we held in People v. De Guzman,[48] the failure to follow the procedure mandated under RA No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations must be adequately explained. The justifiable ground for the non-compliance must be proven as a fact. The Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist. | |||||
|
2011-05-30 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| all of the accused, and the illegal drugs seized. Even the prosecution considered such act of the police officers as dangerous.[40] In People of the Philippines v. Ronaldo de Guzman y Danzil,[41] we held that the length of time that lapsed from the seizure of the items from the accused until the delivery thereof to the investigating officer for marking is too long to be inconsequential. This considered such length of time an important factor in acquitting the accused therein. In this case, a similar vacuum in the chain of custody of the seized items was likewise created which this Court cannot simply brush aside. In sum, there is a serious doubt whether the illegal drugs presented before the RTC were the same drugs recovered from petitioner and accused. Consequently, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the corpus delicti. | |||||
|
2011-01-31 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties cannot be availed of in this case to supply the missing links as the presumption is effectively negated by to the buy-bust team's failure to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and to show that the integrity of the corpus delicti has been preserved. As a general rule, the testimonies of the police officers who apprehended the accused are accorded full faith and credit because of the presumption that they have performed their duties regularly. But when the performance of their duties is tainted with failure to comply with the procedure and guidelines prescribed, the presumption is effectively destroyed. [22] | |||||
|
2010-08-09 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In the present case, the prosecution did not bother to offer any explanation to justify the failure of the police to conduct the required physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs. The apprehending team failed to show why an inventory and photograph of the seized evidence had not been made either in the place of seizure and arrest or at the nearest police station (as required by the Implementing Rules in case of warrantless arrests). We emphasize that for the saving clause to apply, it is important that the prosecution explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses, and that the integrity and value of the seized evidence had been preserved.[40] In other words, the justifiable ground for noncompliance must be proven as a fact. The court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist.[41] | |||||