Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. EDGARDO ADRID Y FLORES

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 193855 2015-02-18	PEOPLE v. VIRGILIO LARGO PERONDO DEL CASTILLO, J.
Lastly, appellant's argument that the buy-bust operation is fatally flawed for failure of the police officers to coordinate with the PDEA deserves scant consideration. Coordination with the PDEA is not a crucial requisite of a proper buy-bust operation;[26] it is not invalidated by mere non-coordination with the PDEA.[27]
	GR No. 203434 2014-07-23	PEOPLE v. MARCELINO VITERBO y REALUBIT PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
In every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the following elements must concur: (a) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it.[35] As the dangerous drug itself forms an integral and key part of the corpus delicti of the crime, it is therefore essential that the identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond reasonable doubt.[36] Thus, the prosecution must be able to account for each link in the chain of custody over the dangerous drug, from the moment it was seized from the accused up to the time it was presented in court as proof of the corpus delicti.[37] Elucidating on the custodial chain process, the Court, in the case of People v. Cervantes,[38] held: As a mode of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. In context, this would ideally include testimony about every link in the chain, from the seizure of the prohibited drug up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that everyone who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received, and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. x x x.[39]
	GR No. 190621 2014-02-10	PEOPLE v. GLENN SALVADOR Y BALVERDE DEL CASTILLO, J.
Lastly, appellant's argument that the entrapment operation is fatally flawed for failure of the buy-bust team to coordinate with the PDEA deserves scant consideration. "[C]oordination with PDEA, while perhaps ideal, is not an indispensable element of a proper buy-bust operation;"[42] it is not invalidated by mere non-coordination with the PDEA.[43]
	GR No. 189840 2013-12-11	PEOPLE v. JAY MONTEVIRGEN Y OZARAGA DEL CASTILLO, J.
Appellant's contention that the buy-bust team should have coordinated with the PDEA on the day the entrapment operation occurred deserves scant consideration. Coordination with the PDEA is not an indispensable element of a proper buy-bust operation.[22] A buy-bust operation is not invalidated by mere non-coordination with the PDEA.[23]
	GR No. 197550 2013-09-25	PEOPLE v. ARTURO ENRIQUEZ Y DE LOS REYES LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
As the dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of both offenses, its identity and integrity must definitely be shown to have been preserved.[31] "This means that on top of the elements of possession or illegal sale, the fact that the substance [possessed or illegally sold], in the first instance, the very substance adduced in court must likewise be established with the same exacting degree of certitude as that required sustaining a conviction."[32] Thus, the prosecution must be able to account for each link in the chain of custody over the dangerous drug, from the moment it was seized from the accused up to the time it was presented in court as proof of the corpus delicti.[33] The chain of custody requirement "ensures that unnecessary doubts respecting the identity of the evidence are minimized if not altogether removed."[34]