Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ERLINDA MALI Y QUIMNO

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 205823 2015-08-17	PEOPLE v. REGIE BREIS Y ALVARADO CARPIO, J.
In People v. Mali,[35] we held: The corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases constitutes the dangerous drug itself. To sustain conviction, its identity must be established in that the substance bought during the buy-bust operation is the same substance offered in court as exhibit. The chain of custody requirement performs this function as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[36]
	GR No. 205202 2014-06-09	PEOPLE v. NENITA GAMATA Y VALDEZ REYES, J.
Illegal sale of prohibited drugs is consummated at the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. In a buy-bust operation, the crime is consummated when the police officer makes an offer to buy that is accepted by the accused, and there is an ensuing exchange between them involving the delivery of the dangerous drugs to the police officer.[20] In order to successfully prosecute the offense, proof beyond reasonable doubt of two elements must be satisfied by the prosecution, viz: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the identity of the object and the consideration of the sale; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and of the payment for the thing.
	GR No. 203028 2014-01-15	PEOPLE v. JOSELITO BERAN Y ZAPANTA REYES, J.
The RTC and CA both convicted Beran on the basis alone of the uncorroborated testimony of PO3 Sia, and despite the buy-bust team's unexplained non-observance of the procedures laid down in Article II, Section 21(a) of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165. As the Court of last resort, we are now called upon to correct this error. Unlike in People of the Philippines v. Erlinda Mali y Quimno a.k.a. "Linda",[43] where we found that the prosecution adequately established the unbroken links in the chain of custody of the confiscated drug, and the apprehending officers were able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the item seized and justified their non-compliance with the above procedures, in the instant appeal we rule that the chain of custody has not been established at all, and thus the integrity and evidentiary value of the drug seized has not been preserved.