Lawyerly

GR No. 215731

2015-09-02

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

We have stated that strict compliance with the prescribed procedure is required for the prosecution of illegal sale because of the illegal drug's unique characteristic rendering it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise.[18] It is thus important that the "chain of custody," provided under Section 21(1),[19] Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and Section 21(a),[20] Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165, be established to allay any suspicion of tampering. In a buy-bust operation, the failure to conduct a physical inventory and to photograph the items seized from the accused will not render his arrest illegal or the items confiscated from him inadmissible in evidence as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the said items have been preserved.[21]

GR No. 188698

2015-07-22

PEOPLE v. SONIA BERNEL NUARIN

BRION, J.

We are mindful of the pernicious effects of drugs in our society; they are lingering maladies that destroy families and relationships, and engender crimes. The Court is one with all the agencies concerned in pursuing an intensive and unrelenting campaign against this social dilemma. Regardless of our desire to curb this menace, we cannot disregard the protection provided by the Constitution, most particularly on the presumption of innocence bestowed on the appellant. Proof beyond reasonable doubt, or that quantum of proof sufficient to produce moral certainty that would convince and satisfy the conscience of those who act in judgment, is indispensable to overcome this constitutional presumption. If the prosecution has not proved, in the first place, all the elements of the crime charged, which in this case is the corpus delicti, then the appellant deserves no less than an acquittal.[22]

GR No. 189296

2015-03-11

PEOPLE v. RECTO ANGNGAO Y MAKAY

BERSAMIN, J.

To ensure a conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements constituting the crime must be present, namely: (a) the identities of the buyer and seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the thing. Such prosecution for the sale of illegal drugs requires more than the hasty presentation of evidence to prove each element of the crime. The presentation of the drugs as evidence in court is indispensable in every prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs because the drugs are the corpus delicti of the crime.[11] As such, the State should establish beyond doubt the identity of the dangerous drugs by showing that the dangerous drugs offered in court as evidence were the same substances bought during the buy-bust operation.[12] This requirement is complied with by ensuring that the custody of the seized drugs from the time of confiscation until presentation in court is safeguarded under what is referred to as the chain of custody by Republic Act No. 9165, whose objective is to remove unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence.[13]

GR No. 203028

2014-01-15

PEOPLE v. JOSELITO BERAN Y ZAPANTA

REYES, J.

It is well-settled that in the prosecution of cases involving the illegal sale or illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the evidence of the corpus delicti, which is the dangerous drug itself, must be independently established beyond reasonable doubt.[18] In People v. Pagaduan,[19] we ruled that proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal prosecution for the sale of illegal drugs demands that unwavering exactitude be observed in establishing the corpus delicti, the body of the crime whose core is the confiscated illicit drug.[20] The case of People v. Tan,[21] cited in People of the Philippines v. Datu Not Abdul,[22] elucidates and reminds us why: "By the very nature of anti-narcotics operations, the need for entrapment procedures, the use of shady characters as informants, the ease with which sticks of marijuana or grams of heroin can be planted in pockets or hands of unsuspecting provincial hicks, and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals, the possibility of abuse is great." Thus, the courts have been exhorted to be extra vigilant in trying drug cases lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses. Needless to state, the lower court should have exercised the utmost diligence and prudence in deliberating upon accused-appellants' guilt. It should have given more serious consideration to the pros and cons of the evidence offered by both the defense and the State and many loose ends should have been settled by the trial court in determining the merits of the present case.

GR No. 200951

2012-09-05

PEOPLE v. JOSE ALMODIEL

CARPIO, J.

"Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition[.][43]

GR No. 173474

2012-08-29

PEOPLE v. REYNALDO BELOCURA Y PEREZ

BERSAMIN, J.

In every criminal prosecution for possession of illegal drugs, the Prosecution must account for the custody of the incriminating evidence from the moment of seizure and confiscation until the moment it is offered in evidence. That account goes to the weight of evidence.[32] It is not enough that the evidence offered has probative value on the issues, for the evidence must also be sufficiently connected to and tied with the facts in issue. The evidence is not relevant merely because it is available but that it has an actual connection with the transaction involved and with the parties thereto. This is the reason why authentication and laying a foundation for the introduction of evidence are important.[33]

GR No. 192261

2011-11-16

PEOPLE v. GARET SALCENA Y VICTORINO

MENDOZA, J.

Proof beyond reasonable doubt demands that unwavering exactitude be observed in establishing the corpus delicti the body of the crime whose core is the confiscated illicit drug.[33] Hence, every fact necessary to constitute the crime must be established. The chain of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[34]

GR No. 186467

2011-07-13

PEOPLE v. JAIME GATLABAYAN Y BATARA

MENDOZA, J.

In sustaining the conviction, the courts a quo relied on the evidentiary presumption that official duties have been regularly performed. Admittedly, the defense did not adduce evidence showing that PO1 Antonio and PO1 Jiro III had any ill motive to falsify their testimony. Nonetheless, the flagrant procedural lapses the police officers committed in handling the allegedly confiscated shabu in violation of the chain of custody requirement effectively negate the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties. Any taint of irregularity affects the whole performance and should make the presumption unavailable. [32] It must be emphasized that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot by itself overcome the presumption of innocence nor constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. [33]

GR No. 181039

2011-01-31

PEOPLE v. SEVILLANO DELOS REYES Y LANTICAN

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

In a prosecution for illegal sale of a prohibited drug under Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. All these require evidence that the sale transaction transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti, i.e., the body or substance of the crime that establishes that a crime has actually been committed, as shown by presenting the object of the illegal transaction. [14]

GR No. 184954

2011-01-10

PEOPLE v. JAY LORENA Y LABAG

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

In a prosecution for illegal sale of a prohibited drug under Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. All these require evidence that the sale transaction transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti, i.e., the body or substance of the crime that establishes that a crime has actually been committed, as shown by presenting the object of the illegal transaction.[13]

	GR No. 215731 2015-09-02	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO CARRERA Y IMBAT VILLARAMA, JR., J.
We have stated that strict compliance with the prescribed procedure is required for the prosecution of illegal sale because of the illegal drug's unique characteristic rendering it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise.[18] It is thus important that the "chain of custody," provided under Section 21(1),[19] Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and Section 21(a),[20] Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165, be established to allay any suspicion of tampering. In a buy-bust operation, the failure to conduct a physical inventory and to photograph the items seized from the accused will not render his arrest illegal or the items confiscated from him inadmissible in evidence as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the said items have been preserved.[21]
	GR No. 188698 2015-07-22	PEOPLE v. SONIA BERNEL NUARIN BRION, J.
We are mindful of the pernicious effects of drugs in our society; they are lingering maladies that destroy families and relationships, and engender crimes. The Court is one with all the agencies concerned in pursuing an intensive and unrelenting campaign against this social dilemma. Regardless of our desire to curb this menace, we cannot disregard the protection provided by the Constitution, most particularly on the presumption of innocence bestowed on the appellant. Proof beyond reasonable doubt, or that quantum of proof sufficient to produce moral certainty that would convince and satisfy the conscience of those who act in judgment, is indispensable to overcome this constitutional presumption. If the prosecution has not proved, in the first place, all the elements of the crime charged, which in this case is the corpus delicti, then the appellant deserves no less than an acquittal.[22]
	GR No. 189296 2015-03-11	PEOPLE v. RECTO ANGNGAO Y MAKAY BERSAMIN, J.
To ensure a conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements constituting the crime must be present, namely: (a) the identities of the buyer and seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the thing. Such prosecution for the sale of illegal drugs requires more than the hasty presentation of evidence to prove each element of the crime. The presentation of the drugs as evidence in court is indispensable in every prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs because the drugs are the corpus delicti of the crime.[11] As such, the State should establish beyond doubt the identity of the dangerous drugs by showing that the dangerous drugs offered in court as evidence were the same substances bought during the buy-bust operation.[12] This requirement is complied with by ensuring that the custody of the seized drugs from the time of confiscation until presentation in court is safeguarded under what is referred to as the chain of custody by Republic Act No. 9165, whose objective is to remove unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence.[13]
	GR No. 203028 2014-01-15	PEOPLE v. JOSELITO BERAN Y ZAPANTA REYES, J.
It is well-settled that in the prosecution of cases involving the illegal sale or illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the evidence of the corpus delicti, which is the dangerous drug itself, must be independently established beyond reasonable doubt.[18] In People v. Pagaduan,[19] we ruled that proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal prosecution for the sale of illegal drugs demands that unwavering exactitude be observed in establishing the corpus delicti, the body of the crime whose core is the confiscated illicit drug.[20] The case of People v. Tan,[21] cited in People of the Philippines v. Datu Not Abdul,[22] elucidates and reminds us why: "By the very nature of anti-narcotics operations, the need for entrapment procedures, the use of shady characters as informants, the ease with which sticks of marijuana or grams of heroin can be planted in pockets or hands of unsuspecting provincial hicks, and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals, the possibility of abuse is great." Thus, the courts have been exhorted to be extra vigilant in trying drug cases lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses. Needless to state, the lower court should have exercised the utmost diligence and prudence in deliberating upon accused-appellants' guilt. It should have given more serious consideration to the pros and cons of the evidence offered by both the defense and the State and many loose ends should have been settled by the trial court in determining the merits of the present case.
	GR No. 200951 2012-09-05	PEOPLE v. JOSE ALMODIEL CARPIO, J.
"Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition[.][43]
	GR No. 173474 2012-08-29	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO BELOCURA Y PEREZ BERSAMIN, J.
In every criminal prosecution for possession of illegal drugs, the Prosecution must account for the custody of the incriminating evidence from the moment of seizure and confiscation until the moment it is offered in evidence. That account goes to the weight of evidence.[32] It is not enough that the evidence offered has probative value on the issues, for the evidence must also be sufficiently connected to and tied with the facts in issue. The evidence is not relevant merely because it is available but that it has an actual connection with the transaction involved and with the parties thereto. This is the reason why authentication and laying a foundation for the introduction of evidence are important.[33]
	GR No. 192261 2011-11-16	PEOPLE v. GARET SALCENA Y VICTORINO MENDOZA, J.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt demands that unwavering exactitude be observed in establishing the corpus delicti the body of the crime whose core is the confiscated illicit drug.[33] Hence, every fact necessary to constitute the crime must be established. The chain of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[34]
	GR No. 186467 2011-07-13	PEOPLE v. JAIME GATLABAYAN Y BATARA MENDOZA, J.
In sustaining the conviction, the courts a quo relied on the evidentiary presumption that official duties have been regularly performed. Admittedly, the defense did not adduce evidence showing that PO1 Antonio and PO1 Jiro III had any ill motive to falsify their testimony. Nonetheless, the flagrant procedural lapses the police officers committed in handling the allegedly confiscated shabu in violation of the chain of custody requirement effectively negate the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties. Any taint of irregularity affects the whole performance and should make the presumption unavailable. [32] It must be emphasized that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot by itself overcome the presumption of innocence nor constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. [33]
	GR No. 181039 2011-01-31	PEOPLE v. SEVILLANO DELOS REYES Y LANTICAN VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In a prosecution for illegal sale of a prohibited drug under Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. All these require evidence that the sale transaction transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti, i.e., the body or substance of the crime that establishes that a crime has actually been committed, as shown by presenting the object of the illegal transaction. [14]
	GR No. 184954 2011-01-10	PEOPLE v. JAY LORENA Y LABAG VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In a prosecution for illegal sale of a prohibited drug under Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. All these require evidence that the sale transaction transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti, i.e., the body or substance of the crime that establishes that a crime has actually been committed, as shown by presenting the object of the illegal transaction.[13]

PEOPLE v. FELIMON PAGADUAN Y TAMAYO