This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-08-11 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| In People v. Gatlabayan[45] and People v. Sitco,[46] this court considered as fatal to the prosecution's case the lack of evidence on the identity of the person who submitted the specimen for examination to the PNP Crime Laboratory and/or the forensic chemist. In Sitco, this court characterized the lack of evidence on this matter as "glaring gaps or missing links in the chain of custody of evidence, raising doubt as to the identity of the seized items and necessarily their evidentiary value."[47] This court also underscored that "[t]his broken chain of custody is especially significant given that what are involved are fungible items that may be easily altered or tampered with."[48] | |||||
|
2013-04-17 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| First, it is settled that an accused in a criminal case is presumed innocent until the contrary is proved and that to overcome the presumption, nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt must be established by the prosecution.[36] As held by this Court in People v. Sitco:[37] | |||||
|
2012-10-24 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The above elements that should be proven in both the sale and possession of dangerous drugs intrinsically include the identification of what was seized by police officers to be the same item examined and presented in court. This identification must be established with moral certainty and is a function of the rule on the chain of custody.[31] In Malillin v. People,[32] we discussed how the chain of custody of seized items should be established: As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. | |||||
|
2011-10-05 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In Zaragga v. People,[24] we held that the material inconsistencies with regard to when and where the markings on the shabu were made and the lack of inventory on the seized drugs created reasonable doubt as to the identity of the corpus delicti. Thus, the accused were acquitted due to the prosecution's failure to indubitably show the identity of the shabu. In People v. Sitco,[25] we enumerated other occasions wherein acquittal was proper for failure of the prosecution to establish a complete chain of custody, such as: In a string of cases, we declared that the failure of the prosecution to offer the testimony of key witnesses to establish a sufficiently complete chain of custody of a specimen of shabu, and the irregularity which characterized the handling of the evidence before it was finally offered in court, fatally conflicts with every proposition relative to the culpability of the accused. | |||||