Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ROSE NANDI Y SALI

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 205821 2014-10-01	PEOPLE v. GARRY DELA CRUZ Y DE GUZMAN LEONEN, J.
In People v. Nandi,[34] this court explained that four (4) links "should be established in the chain of custody of the confiscated item: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court."[35]
	GR No. 207992 2014-08-11	PEOPLE v. ROBERTO HOLGADO Y DELA CRUZ LEONEN, J.
In People v. Nandi,[37] this court explained that four (4) links "should be established in the chain of custody of the confiscated item: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court."[38]
	GR No. 207992 2014-08-11	PEOPLE v. ROBERTO HOLGADO Y DELA CRUZ LEONEN, J.
In sum, the integrity of three (3) of the four (4) links enumerated in People v. Nandi[49] (i.e., seizure and marking, turnover by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer, and turnover by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist) has been cast in doubt. As in Nandi, this doubt must be resolved in favor of accused-appellants.
	GR No. 199901 2013-10-09	PEOPLE v. GARYZALDY GUZON REYES, J.
In drugs cases, the prosecution must show that the integrity of the corpus delicti has been preserved. This is crucial in drugs cases because the evidence involved the seized chemical is not readily identifiable by sight or touch and can easily be tampered with or substituted.[68] "Proof of the corpus delicti in a buy-bust situation requires not only the actual existence of the transacted drugs but also the certainty that the drugs examined and presented in court were the very ones seized. This is a condition sine qua non for conviction since drugs are the main subject of the illegal sale constituting the crime and their existence and identification must be proven for the crime to exist."[69] The flagrant lapses committed in handling the alleged confiscated drug in violation of the chain of custody requirement even effectively negate the presumption of regularity in the performance of the police officers' duties, as any taint of irregularity affects the whole performance and should make the presumption unavailable.[70]