Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO J. ROSIALDA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 193478 2014-06-23	PEOPLE v. RODOLFO P. FERNANDEZ SERENO, C.J.
We have held that the failure of the prosecution to show compliance with the procedural requirements provided in Section 21 of Article II of R.A. 9165 and its IRR is not fatal.[42] What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as these would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[43] As long as the chain of custody remains unbroken, the guilt of the accused will not be affected.[44]
	GR No. 201156 2014-01-29	PEOPLE v. JOSELITO MORATE Y TARNATE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
As to the failure to photograph the inventory of the seized items, such omission on the part of the police officers is not fatal to the case against the accused-appellant. This Court has ruled in various cases, such as People v. Almodiel,[38] People v. Rosialda,[39] People v. Llamado,[40] and People v. Rivera,[41] that the failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated is not fatal and does not automatically render the arrest of the accused illegal or the items seized from him inadmissible.[42] As has been said earlier, the prosecution has sufficiently shown that the identity and evidentiary integrity of the seized items were properly preserved, and that is not materially affected by the prosecution's failure to take a photograph of the seized items.
	GR No.191023 2013-02-06	DON DJOWEL SALES Y ABALAHIN v. PEOPLE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The rule on chain of custody under R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rules and regulations (IRR) expressly demands the identification of the persons who handle the confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring the authorized movements of the illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia from the time they are seized from the accused until the time they are presented in court.[24] We have held, however, that the failure of the prosecution to show compliance with the procedural requirements provided in Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR is not fatal and does not automatically render accused-appellant's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible.[25] What is of utmost importance 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 or innocence of the accused.[26] As long as the chain of custody remains unbroken, the guilt of the accused will not be affected.[27]
	GR No. 200951 2012-09-05	PEOPLE v. JOSE ALMODIEL CARPIO, J.
The Implementing Rules of RA 9165 offer some flexibility when a proviso added 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 officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items."[35] In People v. Rosialda,[36] People v. Llamado,[37] and People v. Rivera,[38] the Court had the occasion to apply such flexibility when it ruled that the failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated is not fatal and does not automatically render the arrest of the accused illegal or the items seized from him inadmissible.
	GR No. 181861 2011-10-17	RAUL DAVID v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
Therefore, it is apparent from the above disquisition that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items seized were well-preserved. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as it would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[30] Anyway, this Court has consistently ruled that non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 will not necessarily render the items seized or confiscated in a buy-bust operation inadmissible.[31] Strict compliance with the letter of Section 21 is not required if there is a clear showing that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved, i.e., the items being offered in court as exhibits are, without a specter of doubt, the very same ones recovered in the buy-bust operation.[32] Hence, once the possibility of substitution has been negated by evidence of an unbroken and cohesive chain of custody over the contraband, such contraband may be admitted and stand as proof of the corpus delicti notwithstanding the fact that it was never made the subject of an inventory or was photographed pursuant to Section 21 (1) of Republic Act No. 9165.[33]
	GR No. 194580 2011-08-31	PEOPLE v. ADRIANO PASCUA Y CONCEPCION VELASCO JR., J.
In People v. Rosialda,[10] We reiterated jurisprudence to the effect that leeway is given to the prosecution as regards compliance with the chain of custody requirement. We have previously underscored that RA 9165's IRR provides 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."[11] What is significant in the requirement is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. Indeed, "non-compliance with the provisions of RA 9165 on the custody and disposition of dangerous drugs is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution's case. Neither will it render the arrest of an accused illegal nor the items seized from her inadmissible."
	GR No. 185166 2011-01-26	PEOPLE v. MARK LESTER DELA ROSA Y SUELLO PEREZ, J.
Even granting arguendo that the prosecution failed to show that the police officers conducted the required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated pursuant to the aforesaid guidelines, the same is not fatal and does not automatically render appellant's arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as it would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[52]
	GR No. 189806 2011-01-12	PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO MANLANGIT Y TRESBALLES VELASCO JR., J.
In People v. Rosialda,[18] the Court addressed the issue of chain of custody of dangerous drugs, citing People v. Rivera, as follows: Anent the second element, Rosialda raises the issue that there is a violation of Sec. 21, Art. II of RA 9165, particularly the requirement that the alleged dangerous drugs seized by the apprehending officers be photographed "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." Rosialda argues that such failure to comply with the provision of the law is fatal to his conviction.