Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. RICARDO REMIGIO Y ZAPANTA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 210841 2015-10-14	PEOPLE v. ENRICO MIRONDO Y IZON MENDOZA, J.
(Emphases Supplied) Indeed, there was nothing in the records that would show that the shabu, subject of Criminal Case No. 5819-SPL, was ever presented by the prosecution before the trial court. Neither PO1 Signap nor SPO4 de la Peña was actually confronted with the subject shabu for proper identification when they were called to the witness stand. Also, the said prosecution witnesses were not given an opportunity to testify as to the condition of the seized item in the interim that the evidence was in their possession and control. Instead, the prosecution endeavored to establish the existence and identity of the narcotic substance supposedly seized from Mirondo through mere photographs depicting him together with the subject shabu and the buy-bust money consisting of two (2) one hundred peso bills. The photographs were marked as Exhibits "I", "I-1" and "I-2." This flaw strongly militates against the prosecution's cause because it not only casts doubt on the existence and identity of the subject shabu but likewise tends to discredit, if not negate, the claim of regularity in the conduct of official police operation. In People v. Remigio,[23] the Court wrote:In this case, no illegal drug was presented as evidence before the trial court. As pointed out by appellant, what were presented were pictures of the supposedly confiscated items. But, in the current course of drugs case decisions, a picture is not worth a thousand words. The image without the thing even prevents the telling of a story. It is indispensable for the prosecution to present the drug itself in court.[24]
	GR No. 215714 2015-08-12	OF PHILIPPINES v. EFREN BASAL CAYAS VILLARAMA, JR., J.
A successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs requires that the following elements be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery to the buyer of the thing sold and receipt by the seller of the payment therefor.[24] What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence.[25] Thus, the delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money consummate the illegal transaction.
	GR No. 208685 2015-03-09	PEOPLE v. RODRIGO CASACOP Y DE CASTRO LEONEN, J.
People v. Remigio[62] restated the chain of custody required in buy-bust operations as follows: First, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer;
	GR No. 212196 2015-01-12	PEOPLE v. RAMIL DORIA DAHIL MENDOZA, J.
In People v. Remigio,[44] the Court noted the failure of the police officers to establish the chain of custody as the apprehending officer did not transfer the seized items to the investigating officer. The apprehending officer kept the alleged shabu from the time of confiscation until the time he transferred them to the forensic chemist. The deviation from the links in the chain of custody led to the acquittal of the accused in the said case.
	GR No. 201156 2014-01-29	PEOPLE v. JOSELITO MORATE Y TARNATE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery to the buyer of the thing sold and receipt by the seller of the payment therefor.[43]
	GR No. 199901 2013-10-09	PEOPLE v. GARYZALDY GUZON REYES, J.
"[A] buy-bust operation is a legally effective and proven procedure, sanctioned by law, for apprehending drug peddlers and distributors."[41] As in all drugs cases, compliance with the chain of custody rule is crucial in any prosecution that follows such operation. Chain of custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.[42] The rule is imperative, as it is essential that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit; and that the identity of said drug is established with the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt.[43]
	GR No. 197250 2013-07-17	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO “ANDY” SOMOZA Y HANDAYA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
(2) the delivery to the buyer of the thing sold and receipt by the seller of the payment therefor.[38]
	GR No. 189351 2013-04-10	PEOPLE v. LOLITA QUESIDO Y BADARANG LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In People v. Remigio,[13] we restated the enumeration of the different links that the prosecution must prove in order to establish the chain of custody in a buy-bust operation, namely: First, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer;