Lawyerly

GR No. 212196

2015-01-12

MENDOZA, J.

The second link in the chain of custody is the transfer of the seized drugs by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer. Usually, the police officer who seizes the suspected substance turns it over to a supervising officer, who will then send it by courier to the police crime laboratory for testing.[42] This is a necessary step in the chain of custody because it will be the investigating officer who shall conduct the proper investigation and prepare the necessary documents for the developing criminal case. Certainly, the investigating officer must have possession of the illegal drugs to properly prepare the required documents.

GR No. 200748

2014-07-23

JAIME D. DELA CRUZ v. PEOPLE

SERENO, C.J.

A charge for violation of Section 15 of R.A. 9165 is seen as expressive of the intent of the law to rehabilitate persons apprehended or arrested for the unlawful acts enumerated above instead of charging and convicting them of other crimes with heavier penalties. The essence of the provision is more clearly illustrated in People v. Martinez[24]as follows: On a final note, this Court takes the opportunity to be instructive on Sec. 11 (Possession of Dangerous Drugs) and Sec. 15 (Use of Dangerous Drugs) of R.A. No. 9165, with regard to the charges that are filed by law enforcers. This Court notes the practice of law enforcers of filing charges under Sec. 11 in cases where the presence of dangerous drugs as basis for possession is only and solely in the form of residue, being subsumed under the last paragraph of Sec. 11. Although not incorrect, it would be more in keeping with the intent of the law to file charges under Sec. 15 instead in order to rehabilitate first time offenders of drug use, provided that there is a positive confirmatory test result as required under Sec. 15. The minimum penalty under the last paragraph of Sec. 11 for the possession of residue is imprisonment of twelve years and one day, while the penalty under Sec. 15 for first time offenders of drug use is a minimum of six months rehabilitation in a government center. To file charges under Sec. 11 on the basis of residue alone would frustrate the objective of the law to rehabilitate drug users and provide them with an opportunity to recover for a second chance at life.

GR No. 203434

2014-07-23

PEOPLE v. MARCELINO VITERBO y REALUBIT

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

While non-compliance with the prescribed procedural requirements will not automatically render the seizure and custody of the items void and invalid, this is true only when (a) there is a justifiable ground for such non-compliance, and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.[41] Hence, any divergence from the prescribed procedure must be justified and should not affect the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items.

GR No. 180661

2013-12-11

GEORGE ANTIQUERA Y CODES v. PEOPLE

ABAD, J.

One final note. The failure of the accused to object to the irregularity of his arrest by itself is not enough to sustain his conviction. A waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during the illegal warrantless arrest.[18]

GR No. 197550

2013-09-25

PEOPLE v. ARTURO ENRIQUEZ Y DE LOS REYES

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

(1) Life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu" is ten (10) grams or more but less than fifty (50) grams; (2) Imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are five (5) grams or more but less than ten (10) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu," or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy," PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or three hundred (300) grams or more but less than five hundred (500) grams of marijuana; and (3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu," or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy," PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana. When prosecuting the sale of a dangerous drug, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[29] In cases of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the essential requisites that must be established are: (1) the accused was in possession of the dangerous drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the dangerous drug.[30]

GR No. 194382

2013-06-10

PEOPLE PHILIPPINES v. GLORIA CALUMBRES Y AUDITOR

PEREZ, J.

We reached the same conclusions in the recent cases of People v. Capuno,[12] People v. Lorena,[13] and People v. Martinez,[14] all in obedience to the basic and elementary precept that the burden of proving the guilt of an accused lies on the prosecution which must rely on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of the defense. At the base, of course, is the constitutional presumption of innocence unless and until the contrary is shown.

GR No. 191730

2013-06-05

PEOPLE v. MYLENE TORRES Y CRUZ

PEREZ, J.

Equally important in every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous or prohibited drugs is the presentation in evidence of the seized drug as the corpus delicti. The identity of the prohibited drug must be proved with moral certainty. It must also be established with the same degree of certitude that the substance bought or seized during the buy-bust operation is the same item offered in court as exhibit.[32] In this regard, paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (the chain of custody rule) provides for safeguards for the protection of the identity and integrity of dangerous drugs seized,[33] to wit: SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

GR No. 188024

2013-06-05

RODRIGO RONTOS Y DELA TORRE v. PEOPLE

SERENO, C.J.

The procedure set forth in Section 21 of R.A. 9165 is intended precisely to ensure the identity and integrity of dangerous drugs seized.[31] This provision requires that upon seizure of illegal drug items, the apprehending team having initial custody of the drugs shall (a) conduct a physical inventory of the drugs and (b) take photographs thereof (c) in the presence of the person from whom these items were seized or confiscated and (d) a representative from the media and the Department of Justice and any elected public official (e) who shall all be required to sign the inventory and be given copies thereof.

GR No. 189277

2012-12-05

PEOPLE v. RICARDO REMIGIO Y ZAPANTA

PEREZ, J.

Thus, there are two indispensables. The illegal drug must be offered before the court as exhibit and that which is exhibited must be the very same substance recovered from the suspect. The needfulness of both was stressed in People v. Lorena,[66] where We, after reiterating the elements of the crime of sale of illegal drug, proceeded to state that all these require evidence that the sale transaction transpired coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti, i.e. the body or substance of the crime, which in People v. Martinez,[67] equates as simply in People v. Gutierrez,[68] was referred to as "the drug itself."

GR No. 190749

2012-04-25

VALENTIN ZAFRA Y DECHOSA v. PEOPLE

PEREZ, J.

We reached the same conclusions in the recent cases of People v. Capuno,[44] People v. Lorena,[45] and People v. Martinez.[46]

GR No. 197788

2012-02-29

RODEL LUZ Y ONG v. PEOPLE

SERENO, J.

The subject items seized during the illegal arrest are inadmissible.[25] The drugs are the very corpus delicti of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Thus, their inadmissibility precludes conviction and calls for the acquittal of the accused.[26]

GR No. 192261

2011-11-16

PEOPLE v. GARET SALCENA Y VICTORINO

MENDOZA, J.

Furthermore, the prosecution failed to supply vital details as to who marked the sachet, where and how the same was done, and who witnessed the marking. In People v. Martinez,[36] the Court ruled that the "marking" of the seized items, to truly ensure that they were the same items that enter the chain and were eventually the ones offered in evidence, should be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator; and (2) immediately upon confiscation in order to protect innocent persons from dubious and concocted searches and to shield the apprehending officers as well from harassment suits based on planting of evidence and on allegations of robbery or theft.

GR No. 186467

2011-07-13

PEOPLE v. JAIME GATLABAYAN Y BATARA

MENDOZA, J.

The prosecution evidence also failed to identify the person who marked the sachet, how the same was done, and who witnessed the marking. In People v. Martinez, [23] the Court ruled that the "marking" of the seized items - to truly ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence - should be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator, and (2) immediately upon confiscation - in order to protect innocent persons from dubious and concocted searches, and the apprehending officers as well from harassment suits based on planting of evidence and on allegations of robbery or theft.

	GR No. 212196 2015-01-12	PEOPLE v. RAMIL DORIA DAHIL MENDOZA, J.
The second link in the chain of custody is the transfer of the seized drugs by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer. Usually, the police officer who seizes the suspected substance turns it over to a supervising officer, who will then send it by courier to the police crime laboratory for testing.[42] This is a necessary step in the chain of custody because it will be the investigating officer who shall conduct the proper investigation and prepare the necessary documents for the developing criminal case. Certainly, the investigating officer must have possession of the illegal drugs to properly prepare the required documents.
	GR No. 200748 2014-07-23	JAIME D. DELA CRUZ v. PEOPLE SERENO, C.J.
A charge for violation of Section 15 of R.A. 9165 is seen as expressive of the intent of the law to rehabilitate persons apprehended or arrested for the unlawful acts enumerated above instead of charging and convicting them of other crimes with heavier penalties. The essence of the provision is more clearly illustrated in People v. Martinez[24]as follows: On a final note, this Court takes the opportunity to be instructive on Sec. 11 (Possession of Dangerous Drugs) and Sec. 15 (Use of Dangerous Drugs) of R.A. No. 9165, with regard to the charges that are filed by law enforcers. This Court notes the practice of law enforcers of filing charges under Sec. 11 in cases where the presence of dangerous drugs as basis for possession is only and solely in the form of residue, being subsumed under the last paragraph of Sec. 11. Although not incorrect, it would be more in keeping with the intent of the law to file charges under Sec. 15 instead in order to rehabilitate first time offenders of drug use, provided that there is a positive confirmatory test result as required under Sec. 15. The minimum penalty under the last paragraph of Sec. 11 for the possession of residue is imprisonment of twelve years and one day, while the penalty under Sec. 15 for first time offenders of drug use is a minimum of six months rehabilitation in a government center. To file charges under Sec. 11 on the basis of residue alone would frustrate the objective of the law to rehabilitate drug users and provide them with an opportunity to recover for a second chance at life.
	GR No. 203434 2014-07-23	PEOPLE v. MARCELINO VITERBO y REALUBIT PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
While non-compliance with the prescribed procedural requirements will not automatically render the seizure and custody of the items void and invalid, this is true only when (a) there is a justifiable ground for such non-compliance, and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.[41] Hence, any divergence from the prescribed procedure must be justified and should not affect the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items.
	GR No. 180661 2013-12-11	GEORGE ANTIQUERA Y CODES v. PEOPLE ABAD, J.
One final note. The failure of the accused to object to the irregularity of his arrest by itself is not enough to sustain his conviction. A waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during the illegal warrantless arrest.[18]
	GR No. 197550 2013-09-25	PEOPLE v. ARTURO ENRIQUEZ Y DE LOS REYES LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
(1) Life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu" is ten (10) grams or more but less than fifty (50) grams; (2) Imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are five (5) grams or more but less than ten (10) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu," or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy," PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or three hundred (300) grams or more but less than five hundred (500) grams of marijuana; and (3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu," or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy," PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana. When prosecuting the sale of a dangerous drug, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[29] In cases of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the essential requisites that must be established are: (1) the accused was in possession of the dangerous drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the dangerous drug.[30]
	GR No. 194382 2013-06-10	PEOPLE PHILIPPINES v. GLORIA CALUMBRES Y AUDITOR PEREZ, J.
We reached the same conclusions in the recent cases of People v. Capuno,[12] People v. Lorena,[13] and People v. Martinez,[14] all in obedience to the basic and elementary precept that the burden of proving the guilt of an accused lies on the prosecution which must rely on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of the defense. At the base, of course, is the constitutional presumption of innocence unless and until the contrary is shown.
	GR No. 191730 2013-06-05	PEOPLE v. MYLENE TORRES Y CRUZ PEREZ, J.
Equally important in every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous or prohibited drugs is the presentation in evidence of the seized drug as the corpus delicti. The identity of the prohibited drug must be proved with moral certainty. It must also be established with the same degree of certitude that the substance bought or seized during the buy-bust operation is the same item offered in court as exhibit.[32] In this regard, paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (the chain of custody rule) provides for safeguards for the protection of the identity and integrity of dangerous drugs seized,[33] to wit: SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
	GR No. 188024 2013-06-05	RODRIGO RONTOS Y DELA TORRE v. PEOPLE SERENO, C.J.
The procedure set forth in Section 21 of R.A. 9165 is intended precisely to ensure the identity and integrity of dangerous drugs seized.[31] This provision requires that upon seizure of illegal drug items, the apprehending team having initial custody of the drugs shall (a) conduct a physical inventory of the drugs and (b) take photographs thereof (c) in the presence of the person from whom these items were seized or confiscated and (d) a representative from the media and the Department of Justice and any elected public official (e) who shall all be required to sign the inventory and be given copies thereof.
	GR No. 189277 2012-12-05	PEOPLE v. RICARDO REMIGIO Y ZAPANTA PEREZ, J.
Thus, there are two indispensables. The illegal drug must be offered before the court as exhibit and that which is exhibited must be the very same substance recovered from the suspect. The needfulness of both was stressed in People v. Lorena,[66] where We, after reiterating the elements of the crime of sale of illegal drug, proceeded to state that all these require evidence that the sale transaction transpired coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti, i.e. the body or substance of the crime, which in People v. Martinez,[67] equates as simply in People v. Gutierrez,[68] was referred to as "the drug itself."
	GR No. 190749 2012-04-25	VALENTIN ZAFRA Y DECHOSA v. PEOPLE PEREZ, J.
We reached the same conclusions in the recent cases of People v. Capuno,[44] People v. Lorena,[45] and People v. Martinez.[46]
	GR No. 197788 2012-02-29	RODEL LUZ Y ONG v. PEOPLE SERENO, J.
The subject items seized during the illegal arrest are inadmissible.[25] The drugs are the very corpus delicti of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Thus, their inadmissibility precludes conviction and calls for the acquittal of the accused.[26]
	GR No. 192261 2011-11-16	PEOPLE v. GARET SALCENA Y VICTORINO MENDOZA, J.
Furthermore, the prosecution failed to supply vital details as to who marked the sachet, where and how the same was done, and who witnessed the marking. In People v. Martinez,[36] the Court ruled that the "marking" of the seized items, to truly ensure that they were the same items that enter the chain and were eventually the ones offered in evidence, should be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator; and (2) immediately upon confiscation in order to protect innocent persons from dubious and concocted searches and to shield the apprehending officers as well from harassment suits based on planting of evidence and on allegations of robbery or theft.
	GR No. 186467 2011-07-13	PEOPLE v. JAIME GATLABAYAN Y BATARA MENDOZA, J.
The prosecution evidence also failed to identify the person who marked the sachet, how the same was done, and who witnessed the marking. In People v. Martinez, [23] the Court ruled that the "marking" of the seized items - to truly ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence - should be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator, and (2) immediately upon confiscation - in order to protect innocent persons from dubious and concocted searches, and the apprehending officers as well from harassment suits based on planting of evidence and on allegations of robbery or theft.

PEOPLE v. ARNOLD MARTINEZ Y ANGELES