This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-03-11 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Such justifiable ground is wanting here. SPO4 Madlon and the rest of the buy-bust team tendered no explanation for the non-compliance. They were required to render sufficient reasons for their non-compliance during the trial; otherwise, the persons they charged would be acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt.[28] Yet, they even seemed unaware that such requirements existed at all. We are aghast at their dismissive treatment of the requirements. | |||||
|
2015-01-12 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The presentation of the dangerous drugs as evidence in court is material if not indispensable in every prosecution for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. As such, the identity of the dangerous drugs should be established beyond doubt by showing that the items offered in court were the same substances bought during the buy-bust operation. This rigorous requirement, known under R.A. No. 9165 as the chain of custody, performs the function of ensuring that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[23] In People v. Catalan,[24] the Court said: To discharge its duty of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the Prosecution must prove the corpus delicti. That proof is vital to a judgment of conviction. On the other hand, the Prosecution does not comply with the indispensable requirement of proving the violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 when the dangerous drugs are missing but also when there are substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs that raise doubts about the authenticity of the evidence presented in court. | |||||