Lawyerly

GR No. 200877

2014-11-12

PEREZ, J.

The specific procedures relating to the seizure and custody of drugs have been laid down under the Implementing Rules and Regulations for Republic Act No. 9165, particularly Section 21(a), Article II thereof, and it is the prosecution's burden to adduce evidence that these procedures have been complied with in proving the elements of the offense.[29] The said Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 reads: (a) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; Provided, further that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. (Emphasis supplied).

GR No. 205821

2014-10-01

PEOPLE v. GARRY DELA CRUZ Y DE GUZMAN

LEONEN, J.

By failing to establish identity of corpus delicti, non-compliance with Section 21 indicates a failure to establish an element of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. It follows that this non-compliance suffices as a ground for acquittal. As this court stated in People v. Lorenzo:[29]

GR No. 202701

2014-09-10

PEOPLE v. EDILBERTO BALIBAY Y LABIS

PEREZ, J.

The elements necessary for the prosecution of the illegal sale of drugs are as follows: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor.[9] The prosecution, to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, must present in evidence the corpus delicti of the case. The corpus delicti is the seized illegal drugs. This is to establish with unwavering exactitude that the seized illegal drugs from the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit.[10]

GR No. 207992

2014-08-11

PEOPLE v. ROBERTO HOLGADO Y DELA CRUZ

LEONEN, J.

By failing to establish identity of corpus delicti, non-compliance with Section 21 indicates a failure to establish an element of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. It follows that this non-compliance suffices as a ground for acquittal. As this court stated in People v. Lorenzo:[32]

GR No. 188707

2014-07-30

PEOPLE v. MANUELITA AMPATUAN Y GONZALES

PEREZ, J.

The elements necessary for the prosecution of the illegal sale of drugs are as follows: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor.[6] The prosecution, to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, must present in evidence the corpus delicti of the case. The corpus delicti is the seized illegal drugs.

GR No. 190177

2014-06-11

PEOPLE v. VIVIAN BULOTANO Y AMANTE

PEREZ, J.

The elements necessary for the prosecution of the illegal sale of drugs are as follows: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor.[11] The prosecution, to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, must present in evidence the corpus delicti of the case. The corpus delicti is the seized illegal drugs.

GR No. 199901

2013-10-09

PEOPLE v. GARYZALDY GUZON

REYES, J.

In the instant case, Guzon was accused of violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 which prohibits the sale of illegal drugs. The elements of the crime include: (a) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the thing.[38] The Court explained in People v. Bautista[39] that in drug-related prosecutions, the State bears the burden not only of proving these elements of the offense under R.A. No. 9165, but also of proving the corpus delicti, the body of the crime. The dangerous drug is itself the very corpus delicti of the violation of the law.[40]

GR No. 174369

2012-06-20

PEOPLE v. ZAFRA MARAORAO Y MACABALANG

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

The presumption of innocence of an accused in a criminal case is a basic constitutional principle, fleshed out by procedural rules which place on the prosecution the burden of proving that an accused is guilty of the offense charged by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Corollary thereto, conviction must rest on the strength of the prosecution's evidence and not on the weakness of the defense.[24] In this case, the prosecution's evidence failed to overcome the presumption of innocence, and thus, appellant is entitled to an acquittal.

GR No. 192188

2011-04-11

PEOPLE v. ANDREW ROBLE

VELASCO JR., J.

In the crime of sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must be able to successfully prove the following elements: "(1) identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor."[34] Similarly, it is essential that the transaction or sale be proved to have actually taken place coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[35] Corpus delicti means the "actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged."[36]

GR No. 185166

2011-01-26

PEOPLE v. MARK LESTER DELA ROSA Y SUELLO

PEREZ, J.

The afore-quoted Section 21(a), Article II of the IRR of Republic Act No. 9165, offers some flexibility in complying with the express requirements. Indeed, the evident purpose of the procedure is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt of or innocence of the accused. Thus, the proviso stating that non-compliance with the stipulated procedure, under justifiable grounds, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items, for as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers.[46]

GR No. 185715

2011-01-19

PEOPLE v. ERLINDA CAPUNO Y TISON

BRION, J.

The Court remained vigilant in ensuring that the prescribed procedures in the handling of the seized drugs were observed after the passage of R.A. No. 9165. In People v. Lorenzo,[34] we acquitted the accused for failure of the buy-bust team to photograph and inventory the seized items. People v. Garcia[35] 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. In Bondad, Jr. v. People,[36] we also acquitted the accused for the failure of the police to conduct an inventory and to photograph the seized item, without justifiable grounds.

GR No. 189844

2010-11-15

PEOPLE v. MARIO VILLANUEVA BAGA

VELASCO JR., J.

In fact, if the prosecution fails to meet the required quantum of evidence, the defense may not even present any defense on its behalf, in which case, the presumption of innocence prevails and the accused is acquitted.[9]

GR No. 189844

2010-11-15

PEOPLE v. MARIO VILLANUEVA BAGA

VELASCO JR., J.

Even though non-compliance with Sec. 21 of the IRR may be excused, such cannot be relied upon when there is lack of any acceptable justification for failure to do so. The Court, citing People v. Sanchez,[41] explained that "the saving clause applies only where the prosecution recognized the procedural lapses, and thereafter explained the cited justifiable grounds."[42] In this case, the prosecution provided no explanation as to why there was a contradiction as to the markings on the confiscated drugs. This is similar to what happened in Zarraga v. People,[43] where the Court 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.

	GR No. 200877 2014-11-12	PEOPLE v. CHARVE JOHN LAGAHIT PEREZ, J.
The specific procedures relating to the seizure and custody of drugs have been laid down under the Implementing Rules and Regulations for Republic Act No. 9165, particularly Section 21(a), Article II thereof, and it is the prosecution's burden to adduce evidence that these procedures have been complied with in proving the elements of the offense.[29] The said Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 reads: (a) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; Provided, further that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. (Emphasis supplied).
	GR No. 205821 2014-10-01	PEOPLE v. GARRY DELA CRUZ Y DE GUZMAN LEONEN, J.
By failing to establish identity of corpus delicti, non-compliance with Section 21 indicates a failure to establish an element of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. It follows that this non-compliance suffices as a ground for acquittal. As this court stated in People v. Lorenzo:[29]
	GR No. 202701 2014-09-10	PEOPLE v. EDILBERTO BALIBAY Y LABIS PEREZ, J.
The elements necessary for the prosecution of the illegal sale of drugs are as follows: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor.[9] The prosecution, to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, must present in evidence the corpus delicti of the case. The corpus delicti is the seized illegal drugs. This is to establish with unwavering exactitude that the seized illegal drugs from the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit.[10]
	GR No. 207992 2014-08-11	PEOPLE v. ROBERTO HOLGADO Y DELA CRUZ LEONEN, J.
By failing to establish identity of corpus delicti, non-compliance with Section 21 indicates a failure to establish an element of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. It follows that this non-compliance suffices as a ground for acquittal. As this court stated in People v. Lorenzo:[32]
	GR No. 188707 2014-07-30	PEOPLE v. MANUELITA AMPATUAN Y GONZALES PEREZ, J.
The elements necessary for the prosecution of the illegal sale of drugs are as follows: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor.[6] The prosecution, to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, must present in evidence the corpus delicti of the case. The corpus delicti is the seized illegal drugs.
	GR No. 190177 2014-06-11	PEOPLE v. VIVIAN BULOTANO Y AMANTE PEREZ, J.
The elements necessary for the prosecution of the illegal sale of drugs are as follows: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor.[11] The prosecution, to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, must present in evidence the corpus delicti of the case. The corpus delicti is the seized illegal drugs.
	GR No. 199901 2013-10-09	PEOPLE v. GARYZALDY GUZON REYES, J.
In the instant case, Guzon was accused of violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 which prohibits the sale of illegal drugs. The elements of the crime include: (a) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the thing.[38] The Court explained in People v. Bautista[39] that in drug-related prosecutions, the State bears the burden not only of proving these elements of the offense under R.A. No. 9165, but also of proving the corpus delicti, the body of the crime. The dangerous drug is itself the very corpus delicti of the violation of the law.[40]
	GR No. 174369 2012-06-20	PEOPLE v. ZAFRA MARAORAO Y MACABALANG VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The presumption of innocence of an accused in a criminal case is a basic constitutional principle, fleshed out by procedural rules which place on the prosecution the burden of proving that an accused is guilty of the offense charged by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Corollary thereto, conviction must rest on the strength of the prosecution's evidence and not on the weakness of the defense.[24] In this case, the prosecution's evidence failed to overcome the presumption of innocence, and thus, appellant is entitled to an acquittal.
	GR No. 192188 2011-04-11	PEOPLE v. ANDREW ROBLE VELASCO JR., J.
In the crime of sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must be able to successfully prove the following elements: "(1) identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor."[34] Similarly, it is essential that the transaction or sale be proved to have actually taken place coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[35] Corpus delicti means the "actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged."[36]
	GR No. 185166 2011-01-26	PEOPLE v. MARK LESTER DELA ROSA Y SUELLO PEREZ, J.
The afore-quoted Section 21(a), Article II of the IRR of Republic Act No. 9165, offers some flexibility in complying with the express requirements. Indeed, the evident purpose of the procedure is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt of or innocence of the accused. Thus, the proviso stating that non-compliance with the stipulated procedure, under justifiable grounds, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items, for as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers.[46]
	GR No. 185715 2011-01-19	PEOPLE v. ERLINDA CAPUNO Y TISON BRION, J.
The Court remained vigilant in ensuring that the prescribed procedures in the handling of the seized drugs were observed after the passage of R.A. No. 9165. In People v. Lorenzo,[34] we acquitted the accused for failure of the buy-bust team to photograph and inventory the seized items. People v. Garcia[35] 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. In Bondad, Jr. v. People,[36] we also acquitted the accused for the failure of the police to conduct an inventory and to photograph the seized item, without justifiable grounds.
	GR No. 189844 2010-11-15	PEOPLE v. MARIO VILLANUEVA BAGA VELASCO JR., J.
In fact, if the prosecution fails to meet the required quantum of evidence, the defense may not even present any defense on its behalf, in which case, the presumption of innocence prevails and the accused is acquitted.[9]
	GR No. 189844 2010-11-15	PEOPLE v. MARIO VILLANUEVA BAGA VELASCO JR., J.
Even though non-compliance with Sec. 21 of the IRR may be excused, such cannot be relied upon when there is lack of any acceptable justification for failure to do so. The Court, citing People v. Sanchez,[41] explained that "the saving clause applies only where the prosecution recognized the procedural lapses, and thereafter explained the cited justifiable grounds."[42] In this case, the prosecution provided no explanation as to why there was a contradiction as to the markings on the confiscated drugs. This is similar to what happened in Zarraga v. People,[43] where the Court 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.

PEOPLE v. PATERNO LORENZO Y CASAS