This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-12-10 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was envisioned by the legislature to serve as a protection for the accused from malicious imputations of guilt by abusive police officers. The illegal drugs being the corpus delicti, it is essential for the prosecution to prove and show to the court beyond reasonable doubt that the illegal drugs presented to the trial court as evidence of the crime are indeed the illegal drugs seized from the accused.[21] In this case, the prosecution failed to show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized had been preserved. Prosecution witness PO1 Tolo testified as follows: Prosecutor Guiritan: | |||||
|
2012-09-05 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| This Court is not persuaded. We have already ruled in a number of cases that non-presentation of the forensic chemist in illegal drugs cases is an insufficient cause for acquittal.[30] | |||||
|
2011-10-05 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Recently, we held that the unjustified failure of the police officers to show that the integrity of the object evidence - shabu - was properly preserved negates the presumption of regularity accorded to acts undertaken by them in the pursuit of their official duties.[28] As a rule, the testimony of arresting police officers in drug cases is accorded faith and credit because of the presumption that they have performed their duties regularly.[29] Slight infractions or nominal deviations by the police from the prescribed method of handling the corpus delicti should not exculpate an otherwise guilty defendant.[30] However, in the present case, there were not merely trifling lapses in the handling of the evidence taken from the accused but the prosecution could not even establish what procedure was followed by the arresting team to ensure a proper chain of custody for the confiscated prohibited drug. | |||||
|
2011-09-28 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Against the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, appellant's plain denial of the offenses charged, unsubstantiated by any credible and convincing evidence, must necessarily fail.[61] Other than the testimony of appellant's common-law wife, whose testimony was rendered suspect because of her relationship with appellant, no other witness not related to appellant was ever presented to corroborate his claim.[62] Further, both prosecution witnesses positively identified appellant in open court to be the same person they caught red-handed selling and possessing shabu. Appellant's bare denial, therefore, cannot prevail over such positive identification made by the prosecution witnesses.[63] In the same way, appellant's denial cannot overcome the presumption that the police officers in this case have performed their duties in a regular and proper manner.[64] Besides, this Court held in a catena of cases that the defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been viewed with disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[65] | |||||
|
2011-01-31 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| People v. Sultan[17] explains further: In fact, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Rep. Act No. 9165 adequately reflects the desire of the law to excuse from the rigid tenor of Section 21 situations wherein slight infractions in methodology are present but the integrity and identity of the specimen remains intact. | |||||