Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. FAISAL LOKS Y PELONYO

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 208015 2015-10-14	PEOPLE OF PHILIPINES v. RONWALDO LAFARAN Y ACLAN PEREZ, J.
However, this Court has, in many cases, held 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." The most important factor is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as they will be used to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.[33]
	GR No. 200295 2015-08-19	PEOPLE v. EDGAR BOLO Y FRANCO PEREZ, J.
However, "this Court has, in many cases, held 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.' The most important factor is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as they will be used to determine the guilt or [the] innocence of the accused. Hence, the prosecution's failure to submit in evidence the physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs[,] as required under [Section] 21 [Article II of the IRR] of [R.A.] No. 9165, will not render the accused's arrest illegal or the items seized from [him] inadmissible."[18]
	GR No. 209588 2015-02-18	PEOPLE v. ERIC ROSAURO Y BONGCAWIL PEREZ, J.
(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. However, this Court has, in many cases, held that while the chain of custody should ideally be perfect, in reality it is "almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain." The most important factor is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as they will be used to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. Hence, the prosecution's failure to submit in evidence the physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs as required under Article 21 of R. A. No. 9165, will not render the accused's arrest illegal or the items seized from him inadmissible.[21]
	GR No. 201100 2015-02-04	PEOPLE OF PHILIPINES v. MHODS USMAN Y GOGO PEREZ, J.
In People v. Loks,[17] we acknowledged that a buy-bust operation is a legally effective and proven procedure, sanctioned by law, for apprehending drug peddlers and distributors. Since accused-appellant was caught by the buy-bust team in flagrante delicto, his immediate arrest was also validly made. The accused was caught in the act and had to be apprehended on the spot.
	GR No. 206229 2015-02-04	PEOPLE v. AMY DASIGAN Y OLIVA PEREZ, J.
However, this Court has, in many cases, held 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." The most important factor is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as they will be used to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. Hence, the prosecution's failure to submit in evidence the physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs as required under Article 21 of R. A. No. 9165, will not render the accused's arrest illegal or the items seized from him inadmissible.[22]
	GR No. 206229 2015-02-04	PEOPLE v. AMY DASIGAN Y OLIVA PEREZ, J.
As to the fact that the seized items were marked only at the police station and not during the actual apprehension and seizure, in People v. Loks,[26] we held that the marking of the seized substance immediately upon arrival at the police station qualified as a compliance with the marking requirement. Such can also be said here, especially in view of the explanation of PCI Meris that the place of arrest had a notorious reputation based on his personal knowledge as well as on police statistics, and that the arresting officers deemed it best that they leave said place right after the arrest of the accused-appellant for fear that the latter might have some back-up.[27]