Lawyerly

GR No. 208015

2015-10-14

PEOPLE OF PHILIPINES v. RONWALDO LAFARAN Y ACLAN

PEREZ, J.

In a catena of cases, this Court laid down the essential elements to be duly established for a successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of dangerous or prohibited drugs, like shabu, under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, to wit: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. Briefly, the delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money by the seller successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction. What is material, therefore, is the proof that the transaction or sale transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti.[18]

GR No. 200295

2015-08-19

PEOPLE v. EDGAR BOLO Y FRANCO

PEREZ, J.

Indeed, as we held in People v. Torres[16] -

GR No. 189296

2015-03-11

PEOPLE v. RECTO ANGNGAO Y MAKAY

BERSAMIN, J.

The Court accepts that "while the chain of custody should ideally be perfect, in reality it is not, 'as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.'"[17] This limitation on the chain of custody is well recognized in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165's IRR, which states that non-compliance with the rules' requirements under justifiable grounds shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. In resolving drug-related offenses, therefore, the courts should deem to be essential "the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused."[18]

GR No. 209588

2015-02-18

PEOPLE v. ERIC ROSAURO Y BONGCAWIL

PEREZ, J.

In a catena of cases, this Court laid down the essential elements to be duly established for a successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of dangerous or prohibited drugs, like shabu, under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, to wit: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. Briefly, the delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money by the seller successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction. What is material, therefore, is the proof that the transaction or sale transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti.[19]

GR No. 201100

2015-02-04

PEOPLE OF PHILIPINES v. MHODS USMAN Y GOGO

PEREZ, J.

In a catena of cases, this Court laid down the essential elements to be duly established for a successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of dangerous or prohibited drugs, like shabu, under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, to wit: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. Briefly, the delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money by the seller successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction. What is material, therefore, is the proof that the transaction or sale transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti.[19]

GR No. 206229

2015-02-04

PEOPLE v. AMY DASIGAN Y OLIVA

PEREZ, J.

Indeed, as we held in People v. Torres,[20] the identity of the prohibited drug must be proved with moral certainty. It must also be established with the same degree of certitude that the substance bought or seized during the buy-bust operation is the same item offered in court as exhibit. In this regard, paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of R. A. No. 9165 (the chain of custody rule) provides for safeguards for the protection of the identity and integrity of dangerous drugs seized, to wit: SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

GR No. 206229

2015-02-04

PEOPLE v. AMY DASIGAN Y OLIVA

PEREZ, J.

x x x Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. [23] (Italics, emphasis, and undecoring omitted)

GR No. 193385

2014-12-01

PEOPLE v. DATS GANDAWALI Y GAPAS

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Following the above sequence of events, the Court entertains no doubt that the sachet containing white crystalline substance sold by appellants to the poseur-buyer was the same one marked with "ES-06-30-03," which was submitted for laboratory examination, found positive for shabu, and later presented to the court during the trial as the corpus delicti. Contrary therefore to appellants' claim, "the totality of evidence presented by the prosecution leads to an unbroken chain of custody of the confiscated item from [appellants]. Though there were deviations from the required procedure, i.e., making physical inventory and taking of photograph of the seized item, still, the integrity and evidentiary value of the dangerous drug seized from [appellants] were duly proven by the prosecution to have been properly preserved; its identity, quantity and quality remained untarnished."[22]

GR No. 200987

2014-08-20

PEOPLE v. RONALDO BAYAN Y NERI

PEREZ, J.

Appellant's defense, which is predicated on a bare denial, deserves scant consideration in light of the positive testimonies of the police officers. The defense of frame-up or denial in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance of their official duties.[18] Bare denials of appellant cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the three police officers.[19] Moreover, there is no evidence of any improper motive on the part of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation to falsely testify against appellant.

GR No. 190177

2014-06-11

PEOPLE v. VIVIAN BULOTANO Y AMANTE

PEREZ, J.

Despite noncompliance with the requirements in Section 21, there is no showing of a break in the chain in the custody of the seized item, later on determined to be shabu, from the moment of its seizure by the entrapment team, to the investigating officer, to the time it was brought to the forensic chemist at the PNP Crime Laboratory for laboratory examination.[37] The prosecution's failure to submit in evidence the required photograph and inventory conducted in the presence of the accused and witnesses of the seized drugs pursuant to Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 will not exonerate Bulotano.[38] Noncompliance with the requirements is not fatal and will not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible.[39] What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[40]

GR No. 206770

2014-04-02

PEOPLE v. NOEL PRAJES

REYES, J.

In a line of cases, the Court has nonetheless explained that "while the chain of custody should ideally be perfect, in reality it is not, 'as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.'"[22] The limitation on chain of custody is also recognized in the afore-quoted Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165's IRR, as it states that non-compliance with the rules' requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. In resolving drug cases, we then repeatedly emphasize that "what is essential is 'the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.'"[23]

GR No. 198452

2014-02-19

PEOPLE v. VICENTE ROM

PEREZ, J.

To secure a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, the following essential elements must be duly established: (1) identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[38] Succinctly, the delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer, as well as the receipt of the marked money by the seller, successfully consummates the buy-bust transaction. Hence, what is material is the proof that the transaction or sale transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence.[39]

GR No. 200915

2014-02-12

PEOPLE v. MERLITA PALOMARES Y COSTUNA

ABAD, J.

To secure conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the identity of the prohibited drug seized from the accused must be proved with moral certainty. The prosecution must establish with such measure of certitude that the substance bought or seized during the buy-bust operation is the same substance offered as evidence in court.[11] Proof of the chain of custody from the time of seizure to the time such evidence is presented in court ensures the absence of doubt concerning the integrity of such vital evidence.[12] This requires as a minimum that the police mark the seized item (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator and (2) immediately upon confiscation.[13]

GR No. 191263

2013-10-16

PEOPLE v. HADJI SOCOR CADIDIA.

PEREZ, J.

As to non-compliance of all the requirements laid down by Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 regarding the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered dangerous drugs,[71] the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 states that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds shall not render void and invalid such seizure of and custody over said items as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. What is important is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[72] The successful presentation of the prosecution of every link of chain of custody as discussed above is sufficient to hold the accused liable for the offense charged.

	GR No. 208015 2015-10-14	PEOPLE OF PHILIPINES v. RONWALDO LAFARAN Y ACLAN PEREZ, J.
In a catena of cases, this Court laid down the essential elements to be duly established for a successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of dangerous or prohibited drugs, like shabu, under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, to wit: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. Briefly, the delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money by the seller successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction. What is material, therefore, is the proof that the transaction or sale transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti.[18]
	GR No. 200295 2015-08-19	PEOPLE v. EDGAR BOLO Y FRANCO PEREZ, J.
Indeed, as we held in People v. Torres[16] -
	GR No. 189296 2015-03-11	PEOPLE v. RECTO ANGNGAO Y MAKAY BERSAMIN, J.
The Court accepts that "while the chain of custody should ideally be perfect, in reality it is not, 'as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.'"[17] This limitation on the chain of custody is well recognized in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165's IRR, which states that non-compliance with the rules' requirements under justifiable grounds shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. In resolving drug-related offenses, therefore, the courts should deem to be essential "the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused."[18]
	GR No. 209588 2015-02-18	PEOPLE v. ERIC ROSAURO Y BONGCAWIL PEREZ, J.
In a catena of cases, this Court laid down the essential elements to be duly established for a successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of dangerous or prohibited drugs, like shabu, under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, to wit: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. Briefly, the delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money by the seller successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction. What is material, therefore, is the proof that the transaction or sale transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti.[19]
	GR No. 201100 2015-02-04	PEOPLE OF PHILIPINES v. MHODS USMAN Y GOGO PEREZ, J.
In a catena of cases, this Court laid down the essential elements to be duly established for a successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of dangerous or prohibited drugs, like shabu, under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, to wit: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. Briefly, the delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money by the seller successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction. What is material, therefore, is the proof that the transaction or sale transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti.[19]
	GR No. 206229 2015-02-04	PEOPLE v. AMY DASIGAN Y OLIVA PEREZ, J.
Indeed, as we held in People v. Torres,[20] the identity of the prohibited drug must be proved with moral certainty. It must also be established with the same degree of certitude that the substance bought or seized during the buy-bust operation is the same item offered in court as exhibit. In this regard, paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of R. A. No. 9165 (the chain of custody rule) provides for safeguards for the protection of the identity and integrity of dangerous drugs seized, to wit: SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
	GR No. 206229 2015-02-04	PEOPLE v. AMY DASIGAN Y OLIVA PEREZ, J.
x x x Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. [23] (Italics, emphasis, and undecoring omitted)
	GR No. 193385 2014-12-01	PEOPLE v. DATS GANDAWALI Y GAPAS DEL CASTILLO, J.
Following the above sequence of events, the Court entertains no doubt that the sachet containing white crystalline substance sold by appellants to the poseur-buyer was the same one marked with "ES-06-30-03," which was submitted for laboratory examination, found positive for shabu, and later presented to the court during the trial as the corpus delicti. Contrary therefore to appellants' claim, "the totality of evidence presented by the prosecution leads to an unbroken chain of custody of the confiscated item from [appellants]. Though there were deviations from the required procedure, i.e., making physical inventory and taking of photograph of the seized item, still, the integrity and evidentiary value of the dangerous drug seized from [appellants] were duly proven by the prosecution to have been properly preserved; its identity, quantity and quality remained untarnished."[22]
	GR No. 200987 2014-08-20	PEOPLE v. RONALDO BAYAN Y NERI PEREZ, J.
Appellant's defense, which is predicated on a bare denial, deserves scant consideration in light of the positive testimonies of the police officers. The defense of frame-up or denial in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance of their official duties.[18] Bare denials of appellant cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the three police officers.[19] Moreover, there is no evidence of any improper motive on the part of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation to falsely testify against appellant.
	GR No. 190177 2014-06-11	PEOPLE v. VIVIAN BULOTANO Y AMANTE PEREZ, J.
Despite noncompliance with the requirements in Section 21, there is no showing of a break in the chain in the custody of the seized item, later on determined to be shabu, from the moment of its seizure by the entrapment team, to the investigating officer, to the time it was brought to the forensic chemist at the PNP Crime Laboratory for laboratory examination.[37] The prosecution's failure to submit in evidence the required photograph and inventory conducted in the presence of the accused and witnesses of the seized drugs pursuant to Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 will not exonerate Bulotano.[38] Noncompliance with the requirements is not fatal and will not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible.[39] What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[40]
	GR No. 206770 2014-04-02	PEOPLE v. NOEL PRAJES REYES, J.
In a line of cases, the Court has nonetheless explained that "while the chain of custody should ideally be perfect, in reality it is not, 'as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.'"[22] The limitation on chain of custody is also recognized in the afore-quoted Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165's IRR, as it states that non-compliance with the rules' requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. In resolving drug cases, we then repeatedly emphasize that "what is essential is 'the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.'"[23]
	GR No. 198452 2014-02-19	PEOPLE v. VICENTE ROM PEREZ, J.
To secure a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, the following essential elements must be duly established: (1) identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[38] Succinctly, the delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer, as well as the receipt of the marked money by the seller, successfully consummates the buy-bust transaction. Hence, what is material is the proof that the transaction or sale transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence.[39]
	GR No. 200915 2014-02-12	PEOPLE v. MERLITA PALOMARES Y COSTUNA ABAD, J.
To secure conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the identity of the prohibited drug seized from the accused must be proved with moral certainty. The prosecution must establish with such measure of certitude that the substance bought or seized during the buy-bust operation is the same substance offered as evidence in court.[11] Proof of the chain of custody from the time of seizure to the time such evidence is presented in court ensures the absence of doubt concerning the integrity of such vital evidence.[12] This requires as a minimum that the police mark the seized item (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator and (2) immediately upon confiscation.[13]
	GR No. 191263 2013-10-16	PEOPLE v. HADJI SOCOR CADIDIA. PEREZ, J.
As to non-compliance of all the requirements laid down by Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 regarding the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered dangerous drugs,[71] the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 states that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds shall not render void and invalid such seizure of and custody over said items as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. What is important is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[72] The successful presentation of the prosecution of every link of chain of custody as discussed above is sufficient to hold the accused liable for the offense charged.

PEOPLE v. MYLENE TORRES Y CRUZ