Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. GOMER S. CLIMACO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 207993 2015-01-21	PEOPLE v. GERARDO ENUMERABLE Y DE VILLA CARPIO, J.
In People v. Climaco,[12] citing Malillin v. People,[13] the Court held: x x x [T]o establish guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in cases involving dangerous drugs, it is important that the substance illegally possessed in the first place be the same substance offered in court as exhibit. This chain of custody requirement ensures that unnecessary doubts are removed concerning the identity of the evidence. When the identity of the dangerous drug recovered from the accused is not the same dangerous drug presented to the forensic chemist for review and examination, nor the same dangerous drug presented to the court, the identity of the dangerous drug is not preserved due to the broken chain of custody. With this, an element in the criminal cases for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the corpus delicti, is not proven, and the accused must then be acquitted based on reasonable doubt. For this reason, [the accused] must be acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt due to the broken chain of custody over the dangerous drug allegedly recovered from him.
	GR No. 200877 2014-11-12	PEOPLE v. CHARVE JOHN LAGAHIT PEREZ, J.
The right of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty is guaranteed under Section 14(2), Article III (Bill of Rights) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. This fundamental right of the accused is also embodied under Section 2, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court,[17] which specifically states that "in a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Only moral certainty is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind."
	GR No. 209785 2014-06-04	PEOPLE v. MARLON ABETONG Y ENDRADO VELASCO JR., J.
Well-settled is that "the dangerous drug itself, the shabu in this case, constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense, and in sustaining a conviction under RA 9165, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must definitely be shown to have been preserved. x x x Thus, to remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the very same illegal drug actually recovered from the accused; otherwise, the prosecution for possession under RA 9165 fails."[19] Applying this precept in the case at bar, any guarantee of the drug item's preservation was effectively removed by the failure of the prosecution to describe consistently the very corpus delicti of the criminal offense.
	GR No. 189277 2012-12-05	PEOPLE v. RICARDO REMIGIO Y ZAPANTA PEREZ, J.
In both cases of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, it is important for the prosecution to show the chain of custody over the dangerous drug in order to establish the corpus delicti.[61]