This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2010-05-06 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The jurisprudence on this point cited in accused-appellants' Brief cannot be applied to their case. In People v. Tan,[23] People v. Labarias[24] and People v. Dismuke,[25] the accused had sufficiently proven irregularities in the conduct of the buy-bust operation and/or ill motives on the part of the police officers which rebutted the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duty. In the case at bar, accused-appellants did not prove any irregularity in the procedures undertaken by the police officers nor did they ascribe bad faith or any improper motive to the police officers involved. On the contrary, accused-appellant Joseph Serrano testified on cross-examination that he did not know of any reason for the police to file charges against him.[26] | |||||
|
2010-04-23 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The foregoing facts and circumstances create doubt as to whether the sachets of shabu allegedly seized from accused-appellant were the same ones that were released to Camp Crame and submitted for laboratory examination. We therefore find that this failure to establish the evidence's chain of custody is damaging to the prosecution's case.[19] | |||||
|
2010-02-22 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Jurisprudence abounds with cases where deviation from the standard procedure in an anti-narcotics operation produces doubts as to the identity and origin of the drug which inevitably results to the acquittal of the accused. In People v. Mapa,[32] we acquitted the appellant after the prosecution failed to clarify whether the specimen submitted to the National Bureau of Investigation for laboratory examination was the same one allegedly taken from the appellant. Also in People v. Dimuske,[33] we ruled that the failure to prove that the specimen of marijuana examined by the forensic chemist was that seized from the accused was fatal to the prosecution's case. The same holds true in People v. Casimiro[34] and in Zarraga v. People[35] where the appellant was acquitted for failure of the prosecution to establish the identity of the prohibited drug which constitutes the corpus delicti. Recently in Catuiran v. People,[36] we acquitted the petitioner for failure of the prosecution witnesses to observe the standard procedure regarding the authentication of the evidence. | |||||
|
2009-08-14 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Long before Congress passed RA 9165, this Court has consistently held that failure of the authorities to immediately mark the seized drugs raises reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti and suffices to rebut the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties,[11] the doctrinal fallback of every drug-related prosecution. Thus, in People v. Laxa[12] and People v. Casimiro,[13] we held that the failure to mark the drugs immediately after they were seized from the accused casts doubt on the prosecution evidence, warranting acquittal on reasonable doubt. These rulings are refinements of our holdings in People v. Mapa[14] and People v. Dismuke[15] that doubts on the authenticity of the drug specimen occasioned by the prosecution's failure to prove that the evidence submitted for chemical analysis is the same as the one seized from the accused suffice to warrant acquittal on reasonable doubt.[16] | |||||
|
2009-04-24 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| By Taasin's claim, he turned over the shabu to PO2 Ricardo Cristobal (Cristobal) who marked it with "AMB" and prepared the request for laboratory examination; and the buy-bust team members were the ones who brought the request, together with the specimen, to the laboratory for examination.[13] The records show, however, that the specimen examined by the forensic chemist was delivered by PO3 Arnel Cave (Cave)[14] who does not appear to have been part of the buy-bust team. Cave did not even take the witness stand. Apropos is this Court's pronouncement in People v. Dismuke:[15] | |||||
|
2003-06-17 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| A. It was used in some other operation, sir. Q. You turned it over to your superior, is that what you are saying? A. To my team leader, sir. Q. Who was team leader? A. At that time it was SPO2 Fernando Fernandez. Q. So you don't know now where is the buy-bust money? A. Yes, sir. COURT: (To witness) Q: You are telling this court that you went to a lot of trouble of having the buy-bust money marked with fluorescent powder by the NBI and yet when it came to the actual transaction you did not use it? A. Because the suspect, sir, brought with him not the exact weight of the marijuana. (Emphasis ours.)[34] More importantly, the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the prohibited drug which constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense, an essential requirement in drug-related cases.[35] In People v. Mapa,[36] appellant was acquitted after the prosecution failed to clarify whether the specimen submitted to the NBI for laboratory examination was the same one allegedly taken from him. In People v. Dismuke,[37] we ruled that the failure to prove that the specimen of marijuana examined by the forensic chemist was that seized from the appellant was fatal to the prosecution's case. | |||||
|
2000-01-19 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| The issue before us deals with the credibility of the witnesses. It is well-settled that, generally, appellate courts will not interfere with the judgment of trial courts in passing upon the credibility of the witnesses unless there appears in the record some facts or circumstances of weight and influence which the trial court has overlooked or the significance of which it has misapprehended or misinterpreted. The reason for this is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[13] | |||||