This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-11-12 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| While this Court recognizes that non-compliance by the buy-bust team with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 is not fatal as long as there is a justifiable ground therefor, for and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team, these conditions, however, were not met in the present case.[30] Despite of all the aforesaid major lapses, the prosecution neither offered any explanation why the procedure was not followed nor mentioned any justifiable ground for failing to observe the rule. In People v. Ancheta,[31] this Court pronounced that when there is gross disregard of the procedural safeguards set forth in Republic Act No. 9165, serious uncertainty is generated as to the identity of the seized items that the prosecution presented in evidence. Such doubt cannot be remedied by merely invoking the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties for a gross, systematic, or deliberate disregard of the procedural safeguards effectively produces an irregularity in the performance of official duties.[32] Also in People v. Ancheta, this Court explained that: Indeed, it is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items that is of utmost importance in determining the admissibility of the evidence presented in court, especially in cases of buy-bust operations. That is why Congress saw fit to fashion a detailed procedure in order to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items would not be compromised. The marking of the seized items was only a piece in a detailed set of procedural safeguards embodied in [Republic Act No. 9165]. If the arresting officers were unable to comply with the other requirements, they were under obligation to explain why the procedure was not followed and prove that the reason provided a justifiable ground. Otherwise, the requisites under the law would merely be fancy ornaments that may or may not be disregarded by the arresting officers at their own convenience.[33] (Emphasis supplied). | |||||
|
2014-06-11 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Thus, while minor deviations from the procedures under Republic Act No. 9165 would not automatically exonerate an accused, when there is gross disregard of the procedural safeguards prescribed in the substantive law, serious uncertainty is generated about the identity of the seized items that the prosecution presented in evidence.[43] Which is why the rule of chain of custody was included in the IRR of the law. | |||||
|
2013-02-27 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In People v. Ancheta,[47] where the sole procedural lapse revolved on the failure to conduct the required physical inventory and the taking of photograph in the presence of the representatives and public officials enumerated in the law despite the fact that the accused had been under surveillance and his name already on the drugs watch list, we ruled: x x x We further note that, before the saving clause provided under it can be invoked, Section 21(a) of the IRR requires the prosecution to prove the twin conditions of (a) existence of justifiable grounds and (b) preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items. In this case, the arresting officers neither presented nor explained justifiable grounds for their failure to (1) make a physical inventory of the seized items; (2) take photographs of the items; and (3) establish that a representative each from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official had been contacted and were present during the marking of the items. These errors were exacerbated by the fact that the officers had ample time to comply with these legal requirements, as they had already monitored and put accused-appellants on their watch list. The totality of these circumstances has led us to conclude that the apprehending officers deliberately disregarded the legal procedure under R.A. 9165. "These lapses effectively produced serious doubts on the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti, especially in the face of allegations of frame-up" Accused-appellants would thereby be discharged from the crimes of which they were convicted.[48] (Emphasis supplied) | |||||