Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO MENDIOLA Y DE LA CRUZ

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 188900 2010-03-05	PEOPLE v. FERNANDO HABANA Y ORANTE ABAD, J.
In all prosecutions for the violation of The Dangerous Drugs Act, the existence of the prohibited drug has to be proved.[24] The chain of custody rule requires that testimony be presented about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was seized up to the time it is offered in evidence. To this end, the prosecution must ensure that the substance presented in court is the same substance seized from the accused.
	GR No. 185284 2009-06-22	PEOPLE v. JASON SY CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The same has no merit. The integrity of the chain of custody of the evidence was not compromised. This Court has explained in People v. Del Monte[21] that what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. The existence of the dangerous drug is a condition sine qua non for conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs.[22] SPO2 Trambulo, the poseur-buyer, testified that upon confiscation of the box with the shabu, he affixed his initials CVT and the date of confiscation of the box. Thereafter, he placed the evidence in his car until they reached the CIDG office, whereupon he showed the same to P/Inspector Culili and the evidence was inventoried as well. Culili then instructed him to bring the evidence to the crime laboratory for examination.
	GR No. 182347 2008-10-17	PEOPLE v. EMILIO RIVERA Y CABLANG CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This Court can no longer find out what justifiable reasons existed, if any, since the defense did not raise this issue during trial.[40] Be that as it may, this Court has explained in People v. Del Monte[41] that what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. The existence of the dangerous drug is a condition sine qua non for conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the crime and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction.[42] Thus, it is essential that the identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond doubt. The chain of custody requirement performs the function of ensuring that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, so much so that unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence are removed.
	GR No. 132371 2003-04-09	PEOPLE v. DANILO SIMBAHON Y QUIATZON YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In all prosecutions for violation of The Dangerous Drugs Act, the existence of the dangerous drug is condition sine qua non for conviction. The dangerous drug is the very corpus delicti of the crime.[7]