Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. RENATO DE LOS REYES Y SOLTEO

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 182236 2011-06-22	PEOPLE v. CHITO GRATIL Y GUELAS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In People v. De Los Reyes, [14] a case which also involved an objection regarding the non-compliance with the chain of custody rule, we held that: The failure of the arresting police officers to comply with said DDB Regulation No. 3, Series of 1979 is a matter strictly between the Dangerous Drugs Board and the arresting officers and is totally irrelevant to the prosecution of the criminal case for the reason that the commission of the crime of illegal sale of a prohibited drug is considered consummated once the sale or transaction is established (People v. Santiago, 206 SCRA 733 [1992]) and the prosecution thereof is not undermined by the failure of the arresting officers to comply with the regulations of the Dangerous Drugs Board. [15]
	GR No. 171018 2009-09-11	PEOPLE v. ELLY NAELGA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The failure of the arresting police officers to comply with said DDB Regulation No. 3, Series of 1979 is a matter strictly between the Dangerous Drugs Board and the arresting officers and is totally irrelevant to the prosecution of the criminal case for the reason that the commission of the crime of illegal sale of a prohibited drug is considered consummated once the sale or transaction is established x x x and the prosecution thereof is not undermined by the failure of the arresting officers to comply with the regulations of the Dangerous Drugs Board. [21]
	GR No. 186138 2009-09-11	PEOPLE v. LORETO DARIA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Second, even prior to the enactment of R.A. 9165, the requirements contained in Section 21(a) were already there per Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 3, Series of 1979. Despite the presence of such regulation and its non-compliance by the buy-bust team, the Court still applied such presumption.[20] We held: "The failure of the arresting police officers to comply with said DDB Regulation No. 3, Series of 1979 is a matter strictly between the Dangerous Drugs Board and the arresting officers and is totally irrelevant to the prosecution of the criminal case for the reason that the commission of the crime of illegal sale of a prohibited drug is considered consummated once the sale or transaction is established and the prosecution thereof is not undermined by the failure of the arresting officers to comply with the regulations of the Dangerous Drugs Board."
	GR No. 179700 2009-06-22	GWYN QUINICOT Y CURATIVO v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Petitioner's contention, that the non-presentation of the confidential informant was fatal, is untenable. The presentation of an informant is not a requisite for the prosecution of drug cases.[34] Police authorities rarely, if ever, remove the cloak of confidentiality with which they surround their poseur-buyers and informers, since their usefulness will be over the moment they are presented in court. Moreover, drug dealers do not look kindly upon squealers and informants. It is understandable why, as much as permitted, their identities are kept secret.[35]
	GR No. 146949 2009-02-13	NARCISO C. LOGUINSA v. SANDIGANBAYAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
As correctly stated in the assailed Sandiganbayan Decision, the failure of the prosecution to present and have the Cashbooks of General Fund marked in evidence does not necessarily exonerate petitioner. The conviction of the petitioner was based on the testimonies of witnesses and other documentary exhibits of the prosecution. It is the prerogative of each party to determine which evidence to submit therefore herein petitioner cannot dictate or impose on the prosecution during the lower court trial as to who or what documentary evidence it should present.[14] Section 5, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure expressly provides that all criminal actions shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal and what prosecution evidence should be presented during the trial depends solely upon the discretion of the prosecutor.[15]