Lawyerly

GR No. 189176

2014-03-19

PEREZ, J.

The elements of illegal possession of prohibited drugs are: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.[17]

GR No. 196973

2013-07-31

PEOPLE v. RUPER POSING Y ALAYON

PEREZ, J.

As to the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish the following elements: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.[42] In the case at hand, the prosecution was able to prove that the accused-appellant was in possession of one (1) plastic sachet of shabu, when he was frisked on the occasion of his arrest. There was also no showing that he had the authority to possess the drugs that was in his person. This Court held in a catena of cases that mere possession of a regulated drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused absent a satisfactory explanation of such possession the onus probandi is shifted to the accused, to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi.[43]

GR No. 186137

2013-06-26

PEOPLE v. DATU NOT ABDUL

SERENO, C.J.

xxx the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it was offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. (Emphasis supplied) Hence, every link in the chain of custody must not show any possibility of tampering, alteration or substitution.[42] However, it is accepted that a perfect chain is not the standard.[43] Nonetheless, two crucial links must be complied with. First, the seized illegal drug must be marked in the presence of the accused and immediately upon confiscation. This marking must be supported by details on how, when, and where the marking was done, as well as the witnesses to the marking. Second, the turnover of the seized drugs at every stage from confiscation from the accused, transportation to the police station, conveyance to the chemistry lab, and presentation to the court - must be shown and substantiated.[44]

GR No. 195777

2013-06-19

PEOPLE v. FERDINAND CASTRO Y LAPENA

PEREZ, J.

Accordingly, with respect to Criminal Case No. 12472-D for illegal sale of shabu, the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the penalty of life imprisonment imposed by the trial court. The fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) is also within the range of the fine prescribed under Section 5 of R.A. 9165.[40] The modification of the penalty imposed in Criminal Case No. 12473-D for illegal possession of shabu from six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum to imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months as maximum, and payment of a fine of three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) is likewise in order.[41]

GR No. 191396

2013-04-17

PEOPLE v. MARILYN AGUILAR Y MANZANILLO

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

(3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.[29]

GR No. 198794

2013-02-06

PEOPLE v. VICTOR DE JESUS Y GARCIA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

It was held, however, that "a testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain."[27] The arresting officers' failure to conduct a physical inventory and to photograph the items seized from De Jesus will not render his arrest illegal or the items confiscated from him inadmissible in evidence as they were able to nonetheless preserve the integrity and the evidentiary value of the said items. This is what is of utmost importance as the seized items are what would be used in the determination of De Jesus' guilt or innocence.[28]

GR No. 192050

2013-01-09

NELSON VALLENO Y LUCITO v. PEOPLE

PEREZ, J.

It is hornbook doctrine that the factual findings of the appellate court affirming those of the trial court are binding on this Court unless there is a clear showing that such findings are tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness or palpable error.[25] After an exhaustive review of the records of this case, we see no sufficient reason for resort to the exception to the rule.

GR No. 199735

2012-10-24

PEOPLE v. AISA MUSA Y PINASILO

VELASCO JR., J.

Moreover, the factual findings of the RTC are strengthened by an affirmatory ruling of the CA. Settled is the rule that the factual findings of the appellate court sustaining those of the trial court are binding on this Court, unless there is a clear showing that such findings are tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness or palpable error.[21] Absent any indication that the courts a quo committed misinterpretation of antecedents or grave abuse of discretion, the facts as established by the trial and appellate courts deserve full weight and credit, and are deemed conclusive.[22]

GR No. 189327

2012-02-29

PEOPLE v. EMILY MENDOZA Y SARTIN

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

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."[30] 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.[31] Hence, the prosecution's failure to submit in evidence the physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs as required under Article 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, will not render Mendoza's arrest illegal or the items seized from her inadmissible.[32]

GR No. 186131

2011-12-14

PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN AMANSEC Y DOÑA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Ideally, the procedure on the chain of custody should be perfect and unbroken. However "a testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain."[43] Thus, even though the prosecution failed to submit in evidence the physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs as required under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, this will not render Amansec's arrest illegal or the items seized from him as inadmissible in evidence.[44] This Court has consistently held that "what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, because the same will be utilized in ascertaining the guilt or innocence of the accused."[45]

	GR No. 189176 2014-03-19	BARRY LANIER v. PEOPLE PEREZ, J.
The elements of illegal possession of prohibited drugs are: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.[17]
	GR No. 196973 2013-07-31	PEOPLE v. RUPER POSING Y ALAYON PEREZ, J.
As to the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish the following elements: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.[42] In the case at hand, the prosecution was able to prove that the accused-appellant was in possession of one (1) plastic sachet of shabu, when he was frisked on the occasion of his arrest. There was also no showing that he had the authority to possess the drugs that was in his person. This Court held in a catena of cases that mere possession of a regulated drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused absent a satisfactory explanation of such possession the onus probandi is shifted to the accused, to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi.[43]
	GR No. 186137 2013-06-26	PEOPLE v. DATU NOT ABDUL SERENO, C.J.
xxx the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it was offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. (Emphasis supplied) Hence, every link in the chain of custody must not show any possibility of tampering, alteration or substitution.[42] However, it is accepted that a perfect chain is not the standard.[43] Nonetheless, two crucial links must be complied with. First, the seized illegal drug must be marked in the presence of the accused and immediately upon confiscation. This marking must be supported by details on how, when, and where the marking was done, as well as the witnesses to the marking. Second, the turnover of the seized drugs at every stage from confiscation from the accused, transportation to the police station, conveyance to the chemistry lab, and presentation to the court - must be shown and substantiated.[44]
	GR No. 195777 2013-06-19	PEOPLE v. FERDINAND CASTRO Y LAPENA PEREZ, J.
Accordingly, with respect to Criminal Case No. 12472-D for illegal sale of shabu, the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the penalty of life imprisonment imposed by the trial court. The fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) is also within the range of the fine prescribed under Section 5 of R.A. 9165.[40] The modification of the penalty imposed in Criminal Case No. 12473-D for illegal possession of shabu from six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum to imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months as maximum, and payment of a fine of three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) is likewise in order.[41]
	GR No. 191396 2013-04-17	PEOPLE v. MARILYN AGUILAR Y MANZANILLO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
(3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.[29]
	GR No. 198794 2013-02-06	PEOPLE v. VICTOR DE JESUS Y GARCIA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It was held, however, that "a testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain."[27] The arresting officers' failure to conduct a physical inventory and to photograph the items seized from De Jesus will not render his arrest illegal or the items confiscated from him inadmissible in evidence as they were able to nonetheless preserve the integrity and the evidentiary value of the said items. This is what is of utmost importance as the seized items are what would be used in the determination of De Jesus' guilt or innocence.[28]
	GR No. 192050 2013-01-09	NELSON VALLENO Y LUCITO v. PEOPLE PEREZ, J.
It is hornbook doctrine that the factual findings of the appellate court affirming those of the trial court are binding on this Court unless there is a clear showing that such findings are tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness or palpable error.[25] After an exhaustive review of the records of this case, we see no sufficient reason for resort to the exception to the rule.
	GR No. 199735 2012-10-24	PEOPLE v. AISA MUSA Y PINASILO VELASCO JR., J.
Moreover, the factual findings of the RTC are strengthened by an affirmatory ruling of the CA. Settled is the rule that the factual findings of the appellate court sustaining those of the trial court are binding on this Court, unless there is a clear showing that such findings are tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness or palpable error.[21] Absent any indication that the courts a quo committed misinterpretation of antecedents or grave abuse of discretion, the facts as established by the trial and appellate courts deserve full weight and credit, and are deemed conclusive.[22]
	GR No. 189327 2012-02-29	PEOPLE v. EMILY MENDOZA Y SARTIN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
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."[30] 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.[31] Hence, the prosecution's failure to submit in evidence the physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs as required under Article 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, will not render Mendoza's arrest illegal or the items seized from her inadmissible.[32]
	GR No. 186131 2011-12-14	PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN AMANSEC Y DOÑA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Ideally, the procedure on the chain of custody should be perfect and unbroken. However "a testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain."[43] Thus, even though the prosecution failed to submit in evidence the physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs as required under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, this will not render Amansec's arrest illegal or the items seized from him as inadmissible in evidence.[44] This Court has consistently held that "what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, because the same will be utilized in ascertaining the guilt or innocence of the accused."[45]

ROSANA ASIATICO Y STA. MARIA v. PEOPLE