This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-07-22 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In People of the Philippines v. Merlita Palomares y Costuna,[17] the Court acquitted the accused for the prosecution's failure to clearly establish the identity of the person who marked the seized drugs; the place where the marking was made; and whether the marking had been made in the accused's presence. | |||||
|
2015-02-04 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Clearly, the absence of markings creates an uncertainty that the two sachets seized during the buy-bust operation were part of the five sachets submitted to the police crime laboratory. The prosecution's evidence failed to establish the marking of the two sachets of shabu subject of this case, which is the first link in the chain of custody and which would have shown that the shabu presented in evidence was the same specimen bought from appellant during the buy-bust operation. The lack of certainty therefore on a crucial element of the crime i.e., the identity of the corpus delicti, warrants the reversal of the judgment of conviction.[26] | |||||
|
2014-04-21 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In Lito Lopez v. People of the Philippines[20] we acquitted the accused for failure of the police to mark the seized drugs. The Court had a similar ruling in People of the Philippines v. Merlita Palomares y Costuna;[21] the Court acquitted the accused for the prosecution's failure to clearly establish the identity of the person who marked the seized drugs; the place where marking was made; and whether the marking had been made in the accused's presence. These recent cases show that the Court will not hesitate to free an accused if irregularities attended the first stage of the chain of custody over the seized drugs. | |||||