This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-03-12 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In a prosecution for the sale of a dangerous drug, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. Simply put, "[in] prosecutions for illegal sale of shabu, 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."[19] And in the prosecution of these offenses, the primary consideration is to ensure that the identity and integrity of the seized drugs and other related articles have been preserved from the time they were confiscated from the accused until their presentation as evidence in court.[20] | |||||
|
2014-03-05 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Moreover, we have time and again recognized that a buy-bust operation resulting from the tip of an anonymous confidential informant, although an effective means of eliminating illegal drug related activities, is "susceptible to police abuse." Worse, it is usually used as a means for extortion.[17] It is for this reason, that the Court must ensure that the enactment of R.A. No. 9165 providing specific procedures to counter these abuses is not put to naught.[18] | |||||
|
2013-07-04 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The prosecution cannot rely on the saving clause provided under Section 21(a) of the IRR that non-compliance with the legal requirements shall not render void and invalid seizures of and custody over said items. This saving clause is applicable only if prosecution was able to prove the twin conditions of (a) existence of justifiable grounds and (b) preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the items.[77] The procedural lapses in this case put to doubt the integrity of the items presented in court. | |||||
|
2013-07-03 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Yet, the police officers did not bother to offer any sort of reason or justification for their failure to make an inventory and take pictures of the drugs immediately after their seizure in the presence of the accused and the other persons designated by the law. Both the RTC and the CA misapprehended the significance of such omission. It is imperative for the prosecution to establish a justifiable cause for non-compliance with the procedural requirements set by law.[22] The procedures outlined in Section 21 of R.A. 9165 are not merely empty formalities these are safeguards against abuse,[23] the most notorious of which is its use as a tool for extortion.[24] | |||||