Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. MADS SALUDIN MANTAWIL

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	AC. No. 8319 2015-09-16	DAVID WILLIAMS v. ATTY. RUDY T. ENRIQUEZ MENDOZA, J.
In the separate Report and Recommendation,[3] both dated August 4, 2011, the IBP- CBD recommended the dismissal of A.C. No. 8319 and A.C. No. 8366 for lack of merit. Concurring with the recommendations, the IBP Board of Governors dismissed both complaints, first in its September 20, 2012 Resolution,[4] and second, in its February 13, 2013 Resolution.[5] As no motion for reconsideration on petition for review was filed, the Court, in its November 26, 2014 Resolution,[6] declared these cases, A.C. No. 8319 and A.C. No. 8366, closed and terminated.
	GR No. 194499 2015-01-14	MANUEL R. PORTUGUEZ v. PEOPLE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The Court gives full faith and credence to the testimonies of the police officers and upholds the presumption of regularity in the apprehending officers' performance of official duty. It is a settled rule that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers, for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary.[29] However, petitioner failed to present clear and convincing evidence to overturn the presumption that the arresting officers regularly performed their duties. Except for his bare allegations of denial and frame-up, and that the police officers had mistakenly identified him as Bobot, his younger brother, nothing supports his claim that the police officers were impelled by improper motives to testify against him. Needless to stress, the integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved, unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with.[30] On petitioner's claim that at the time of his arrest, Bobot was actually confined in a rehabilitation center in Bicutan,[31] we note that petitioner failed to fulfill his promise[32] to prove it as fact.
	GR No. 205227 2014-04-07	PEOPLE v. MARCO P. ALEJANDRO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The first link in the chain of custody starts with the seizure of the transparent plastic sachet containing shabu during the buy-bust operation. Records show that from the time appellant handed to SPO1 Cariaso the said item, only SPO1 Cariaso was in possession of the same until it was brought to the PDEA office. SPO1 Cariaso himself marked the said sachet of shabu with his initials and date of buy-bust: "EXH A J.A.C. July 12, 2006." While the marking was not immediately made at the crime scene, it does not automatically impair the integrity of the chain of custody as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved.[33]
	GR No. 191062 2012-09-19	PEOPLE v. MOHAMAD ANGKOB Y MLANG PEREZ, J.
The first link in the chain of custody starts with the seizure of the plastic sachet containing shabu during the buy-bust operation. Records show that only Sistemio was in possession of the shabu from the time it was given to him by appellant, while they were in the Security Office of the mall where the accused were initially brought, while they were in transit, and up until they reached the PDEA Office. While the marking was not immediately made at the crime scene, it does not automatically impair the integrity of the chain of custody as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved.[28] The marking of the seized items at the police station and in the presence of the accused was sufficient compliance with the rules on chain of custody. Marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team.[29] In this case, Sistemio immediately marked the seized item upon reaching the PDEA Office. He marked it with his initials "PVS" and the date of the buy-bust sale.