This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-03-25 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Similarly, it must be shown that the integrity and evidentiary value of such seized items have been preserved. In other words, the dangerous drug presented in court as evidence against an accused must be the same as that seized from him. The chain of custody requirement ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[28] In People v. Viterbo,[29] citing People v. Cervantes[30] the Court had occasion to elaborate on the requirement's rationale: In every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the following elements must concur: (a) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it. As the dangerous drug itself forms an integral and key part of the corpus delicti of the crime, it is therefore essential that the identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the prosecution must be able to account for each link in the chain of custody over the dangerous drug, from the moment it was seized from the accused up to the time it was presented in court as proof of the corpus delicti. Elucidating on the custodial chain process, the Court, in the case of People v. Cervantes, held: | |||||
|
2015-02-04 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| In order to convict an accused for violation of RA 9165, or the crime of sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish the concurrence of the following elements: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment.[24] Note that what remains material for conviction is the proof that the transaction actually took place, coupled with the presentation before the court of the corpus delicti.[25] It is also important that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items be preserved. Simply put, the dangerous drug presented in court as evidence against an accused must be the same as that seized from him. The chain of custody requirement removes any unnecessary doubts regarding the identity of the evidence.[26] As held in People v. Viterbo:[27] | |||||