Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ALBERTO GONZALES Y SANTOS

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 189296 2015-03-11	PEOPLE v. RECTO ANGNGAO Y MAKAY BERSAMIN, J.
There is no question that the State had the responsibility to explain the lapses in the procedures taken to preserve the chain of custody of the dangerous drugs. Without the explanation by the State, the evidence of the corpus delicti became unreliable, and the acquittal of the accused should follow on the ground that his guilt had not been shown beyond reasonable doubt.[29] Absent the justification by the arresting lawmen for their non-compliance with the requirement of an intact chain of custody, the trial court and the CA did not fairly convict the appellant in whose favor the safeguards have been erected by the law. As the Court well stated in People v. Relato:[30]
	GR No. 203026 2015-01-28	PEOPLE v. NATHANIEL PASION Y DELA CRUZ PEREZ, J.
In a prosecution for the illegal sale and illegal delivery of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place; and (2) presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.[14]
	GR No. 183700 2014-10-13	PEOPLE v. PABLITO ANDAYA Y REANO BERSAMIN, J.
To secure the conviction of the accused who is charged with the illegal sale of dangerous drugs as defined and punished by Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002), the State must establish the concurrence of the following elements, namely: (a) that the transaction or sale took place between the accused and the poseur buyer; and (b) that the dangerous drugs subject of the transaction or sale is presented in court as evidence of the corpus delicti.[10]
	GR No. 184758 2014-04-21	PEOPLE v. SONNY SABDULA Y AMANDA BRION, J.
In People v. Gonzales,[23] the police failed to conduct an inventory and to photograph the seized plastic sachet. In acquitting the accused based on reasonable doubt, we explained that [t]he omission of the inventory and photographing exposed another weakness of the evidence of guilt, considering that the inventory and photographing to be made in the presence of the accused or his representative, or within the presence of any representative from the media, Department of Justice or any elected official, who must sign the inventory, or be given a copy of the inventory were really significant stages of the procedures outlined by the law and its IRR.[24]
	GR No. 198804 2014-01-22	CARLITO VALENCIA Y CANDELARIA v. PEOPLE REYES, J.
Crucial in proving the chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related items immediately after they are seized from the accused.[27] In People v. Gonzales,[28] the Court explained that: The first stage in the chain of custody rule is the marking of the dangerous drugs or related items. Marking, which is the affixing on the dangerous drugs or related items by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his initials or signature or other identifying signs, should be made in the presence of the apprehended violator immediately upon arrest. The importance of the prompt marking cannot be denied, because succeeding handlers of dangerous drugs or related items will use the marking as reference. Also, the marking operates to set apart as evidence the dangerous drugs or related items from other material from the moment they are confiscated until they are disposed of at the close of the criminal proceedings, thereby forestalling switching, planting or contamination of evidence. In short, the marking immediately upon confiscation or recovery of the dangerous drugs or related items is indispensable in the preservation of their integrity and evidentiary value.[29] (Emphasis ours)
	GR No. 198113 2013-12-11	PEOPLE v. FERDINAND BAUTISTA Y SINAON ABAD, J.
To prove the corpus delicti, the prosecution must show that the dangerous drugs seized from the accused and subsequently examined in the laboratory are the same dangerous drugs presented in court as evidence to prove his guilt.[10] To ensure that this is done right and that the integrity of the evidence of the dangerous drugs is safeguarded, Congress outlined in Sec. 21 of R.A. 9165 the mandatory procedure that law enforcers must observe following the seizure of such substance:(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;