This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-02-18 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| "Marking" initiates the process of protecting innocent persons from dubious and concocted searches, and of protecting as well the apprehending officers from harassment suits based on planting of evidence.[62] Marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team, [63] like what occurred in the present case. In the same vein, the fact that the markings used in the subject sachets were the initials of Dela Peña and Delima and not the initials of the arresting PDEA agent is not a ground to acquit the appellants. In the similar case of People v. Cardenas,[64] where the seized plastic sachets containing shabu were marked with the initials of accused-appellant, his conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs was nonetheless affirmed. Further, the defense cannot raise for the first time on appeal the question of whether the markings were made in the presence of Dela Peña and Delima. Lapses that affected the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drugs should be raised at the trial court level. [65] In any case, marking of the evidence, just like the security measures mandated under Section 21 of R.A. 9165, is aimed to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated illegal drugs will be preserved. With the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the six sachets seized from Dela Peña and Delima, as previously discussed, the lapses allegedly committed by the PDEA-7 operatives in the marking thereof, will not suffice to reverse their conviction. | |||||
|
2014-07-23 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| To ascertain that the illegal drugs presented in court are the ones actually seized from the accused, the prosecution must show that: (a) the prescribed procedure under Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 has been complied with or falls within the saving clause provided in Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165; and (b) there was an unbroken link in the chain of custody with respect to the confiscated items.[39] | |||||
|
2014-02-12 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Of course, the Court has ruled that immediate marking could be made at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team.[14] Here, however, the evidence is unclear as to where the responsible police officer marked the seized substance and whether it was done in Merlita's presence. In fact, it is also not clear from the evidence which police officer did the marking since PO2 Mallari and PO2 Flores gave conflicting testimonies on this point.[15] This uncertainty concerning a vital element of the crime warrants overturning the judgment of conviction.[16] | |||||
|
2013-12-11 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| First, the fact that PO1 Montuno marked the plastic sachet seized from the accused-appellant at the Zamboanga City Police Station and not at the crime scene did not impair its admissibility as evidence or the integrity of the chain of custody. As clarified in People v. Angkob,[51] marking upon "immediate" confiscation of the prohibited items contemplates even that which was done at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team.[52] | |||||
|
2013-10-16 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| b. "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 [was] of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.[62] | |||||
|
2013-01-28 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Neither will the non-presentation in court of Police Senior Inspector Ebuen, the forensic chemist who conducted the laboratory examination on the confiscated substance, operate to acquit appellant. The matter of presentation of witnesses by the prosecution is not for the court to decide. It has the discretion as to how to present its case and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses.[41] Besides, corpus delicti has nothing to do with the testimony of the chemical analyst, and the report of an official forensic chemist regarding a recovered prohibited drug enjoys the presumption of regularity in its preparation.[42] Corollarily, under Sec. 44 of Rule 130, Revised Rules of Court, entries in official records made in the performance of official duty are prima facie evidence of the facts they state. | |||||