This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-02-23 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Finally, while it is admitted that the apprehending officers failed to conduct an inventory of the seized item and to photograph the same as required by paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and Section 21(a) of its Implementing Rules and Regulations, the non-compliance did not affect the seized item's evidentiary weight and admissibility in evidence. As previously discussed, the chain of custody of the seized item was unbroken, hence, its integrity and evidentiary value were not compromised. It must be stressed that what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item.[15] | |||||
|
2014-12-03 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| "In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, [such as shabu], the following elements must be duly established: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration, and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction."[4] Here, the prosecution submitted evidence that duly established the elements of illegal sale of shabu. It positively identified appellant as the seller of the seized illegal substance which turned out to be positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride commonly known as shabu, a dangerous drug. Appellant sold and delivered the drug for P1,500.00 to Ebio, a police asset who acted as poseur-buyer. Verily, all the elements of the sale of illegal drugs were established to support appellant's conviction of the said offense. | |||||
|
2014-07-23 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In any case, contrary to appellant's claim, strict compliance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 is not necessary[45] "as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team." Elaborating on the provisions of R.A. No. 9165, Section 21 (a) of its IRR states: (a) The apprehending officer/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: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2014-06-11 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Despite noncompliance with the requirements in Section 21, there is no showing of a break in the chain in the custody of the seized item, later on determined to be shabu, from the moment of its seizure by the entrapment team, to the investigating officer, to the time it was brought to the forensic chemist at the PNP Crime Laboratory for laboratory examination.[37] The prosecution's failure to submit in evidence the required photograph and inventory conducted in the presence of the accused and witnesses of the seized drugs pursuant to Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 will not exonerate Bulotano.[38] Noncompliance with the requirements is not fatal and will not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible.[39] What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[40] | |||||
|
2014-01-22 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Although the Court has ruled that non-compliance with the directives of Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution's case,[36] the prosecution must still prove that (a) there is a justifiable ground for the non-compliance, and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved.[37] Further, the non-compliance with the procedures must be justified by the State's agents themselves.[38] The arresting officers are under obligation, should they be unable to comply with the procedures laid down under Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, to explain why the procedure was not followed and prove that the reason provided a justifiable ground. Otherwise, the requisites under the law would merely be fancy ornaments that may or may not be disregarded by the arresting officers at their own convenience.[39] | |||||
|
2013-06-05 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In a catena of cases, this Court laid down the essential elements to be duly established for a successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of dangerous or prohibited drugs, like shabu, under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, to wit: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor.[28] Briefly, the delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money by the seller successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction. What is material, therefore, is the proof that the transaction or sale transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti.[29] | |||||