Lawyerly

GR No. 195528

2013-07-04

PEREZ, J.

Inconsistencies of the prosecution witnesses referring to the events that transpired in the buy-bust operation can overturn the judgment of conviction. As held in Zaragga v. People,[61] material inconsistencies with regard to when and where the markings on the shabu were made and the lack of inventory on the seized drugs created reasonable doubt as to the identity of the corpus delicti. Prosecution's failure to indubitably show the identity of the shabu led to the acquittal of the accused in that case.[62]

GR No. 180504

2011-10-05

PEOPLE v. EDWIN ULAT Y AGUINALDO

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The law presumes that an accused in a criminal prosecution is innocent until the contrary is proved. This basic constitutional principle is fleshed out by procedural rules which place on the prosecution the burden of proving that an accused is guilty of the offense charged by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the degree of proof has been met is largely left for the trial courts to determine. However, an appeal throws the whole case open for review such that the Court may, and generally does, look into the entire records if only to ensure that no fact of weight or substance has been overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied by the trial court.[10]

GR No. 192188

2011-04-11

PEOPLE v. ANDREW ROBLE

VELASCO JR., J.

In the instant case, no justifiable grounds were put forth by the prosecution for the procedural lapses. In his testimony, PO2 Laurel clearly stated that no inventory was made after he and his team obtained custody of the drugs. This is a patent violation of the aforementioned section. Citing Zarraga v. People,[48] the Court, in People v. Lorenzo, held that "the lack of inventory on the seized drugs create[s] reasonable doubt as to the identity of the corpus delicti."[49]

GR No. 191366

2010-12-13

PEOPLE v. ARNOLD MARTINEZ Y ANGELES

MENDOZA, J.

This Court has repeatedly reversed conviction in drug cases for failure to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, resulting in the failure to properly preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. Some cases are People v. Garcia,[39] People v. Dela Cruz,[40] People v. Dela Cruz,[41] People v. Santos, Jr.,[42] People v. Nazareno,[43] People v. Orteza,[44] Zarraga v. People,[45] and People v. Kimura.[46]

GR No. 189844

2010-11-15

PEOPLE v. MARIO VILLANUEVA BAGA

VELASCO JR., J.

Even though non-compliance with Sec. 21 of the IRR may be excused, such cannot be relied upon when there is lack of any acceptable justification for failure to do so. The Court, citing People v. Sanchez,[41] explained that "the saving clause applies only where the prosecution recognized the procedural lapses, and thereafter explained the cited justifiable grounds."[42] In this case, the prosecution provided no explanation as to why there was a contradiction as to the markings on the confiscated drugs. This is similar to what happened in Zarraga v. People,[43] where the Court held that the material inconsistencies with regard to when and where the markings on the shabu were made and the lack of inventory on the seized drugs created reasonable doubt as to the identity of the corpus delicti.

GR No. 186498

2010-03-26

PEOPLE v. RONALDO DE GUZMAN Y DANZIL

NACHURA, J.

Although the question of whether the degree of proof has been met is largely left for the trial courts to determine, an appeal throws the whole case open for review.[16] Thus, the factual findings of the trial court may be reversed if, by the evidence or the lack of it, it appears that the trial court erred.[17]

GR No. 184546

2010-02-22

PEOPLE v. WILSON SUAN Y JOLONGON

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.

GR No. 180870

2010-01-22

JULIUS CACAO Y PRIETO v. PEOPLE

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Moreover, considering the testimony of Ancheta, it was Balolong who forwarded the seized item. It is quite strange that Ancheta would point to Balolong as the sender of the seized items if he had no basis in saying so. However, our own scrutiny of the records failed to show the role of Balolong in the operation since admittedly, the only lawmen who participated therein were Mangapit and Pang-ag. In fact, as testified to by Mangapit, Balolong proceeded to the hotel after the operation.[30] How then was Balolong able to get hold of the confiscated substance when he was neither a party to nor present during the operation? Who entrusted the substance to him assuming that somebody requested him to submit it for safekeeping? These are only some of the lingering questions which must be answered convincingly and satisfactorily so as to ensure that there had been no substitution, contamination or tampering with the sachet of shabu allegedly taken from petitioner. It must be noted that Balolong was never presented to testify in this case. Thus, there is no evidence to prove that what was turned over to the evidence custodian by Balolong and later presented in court was the same substance recovered from petitioner. The failure to establish the chain of custody is fatal to the prosecution's case. There can be no crime of illegal possession of a prohibited drug when nagging doubts persist on whether the item confiscated was the same specimen examined and established to be the prohibited drug.[31] In People v. Casimiro,[32] citing People v. Mapa,[33] we acquitted the accused for failure of the prosecution to establish the identity of the prohibited drug which constitutes the corpus delicti. Equally true in Zarraga v. People,[34] we also acquitted the accused in view of the prosecution's failure to indubitably show the identity of the shabu.

GR No. 182528

2009-08-14

PEOPLE v. MARIAN CORECHE Y CABER

CARPIO, J.

In Zarraga v. People,[19] we reversed a guilty verdict for violation of Section 5 of RA 9165 (sale of shabu) largely due to the conflicting testimonies of the police officers who conducted the sting operation on when and where the seized drugs were marked. There, we observed that: [T]here are material inconsistencies in the testimonies of Guevarra and Luna particularly with regard to when and where the markings on the shabu were made. Guevarra testified that he handed the shabu to Manglo and that he put markings on the substance.

GR No. 177220

2009-04-24

PEOPLE v. RUBEN ROBLES Y NOVILINIO

CARPIO MORALES, J.

A unique characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are not readily identifiable as in fact they are subject to scientific analysis to determine their composition and nature. The Court cannot close its eyes to the likelihood, or at least the possibility, that at any of the links in the chain of custody over the same there could have been tampering, alteration or substitution of substances from other cases -- by accident or otherwise -- in which similar evidence was seized or in which similar evidence was submitted for laboratory testing.[20] Thus, the corpus delicti should be identified with unwavering exactitude.[21]

GR No. 182790

2009-04-24

PEOPLE v. CESAR CANTALEJO Y MANLANGIT

TINGA, J.

In People v. Orteza,[19] the Court citing People v. Laxa,[20] People v. Kimura[21] and Zarraga v. People,[22] reiterated the ruling that the failure of the police to comply with the procedure in the custody of the seized drugs raises doubt as to its origins.[23]

GR No. 181545

2008-10-08

PEOPLE v. MARK DELA CRUZ

TINGA, J.

Thus, the corpus delicti should be identified with unwavering exactitude.[20]

GR No. 179939

2008-09-29

PEOPLE v. GERALDINE MAGAT Y PADERON

TINGA, J.

In Zaragga v. People,[31] involving a violation of R.A. No. 6425, the police failed to place markings on the alleged seized shabu immediately after the accused were apprehended. The buy-bust team also failed to prepare an inventory of the seized drugs which accused had to sign, as required by the same Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 3, Series of 1979. The Court held thatthe prosecution failed to establish the identity of the prohibited drug which constitutes the corpus delicti.[32]

GR No. 174771

2007-09-11

PEOPLE v. ALLAN NAZARENO Y CABURATAN

TINGA, J.

Similarly in Zarraga v. People,[33] we held that the material inconsistencies as regards when and where the markings on the shabu were made and the lack of inventory on the seized drugs created reasonable doubt as to the identity of the corpus delicti. Hence, the accused was acquitted.

GR NO. 173051

2007-07-31

PEOPLE v. GERARDO ORTEZA

TINGA, J.

More recently, in Zarraga v. People,[32] the Court held that the material inconsistencies with regard to when and where the markings on the shabu were made and the lack of inventory on the seized drugs created reasonable doubt as to the identity of the corpus delicti. The Court thus acquitted the accused due to the prosecution's failure to indubitably show the identity of the shabu.

	GR No. 195528 2013-07-04	PEOPLE v. JOSE CLARA Y BUHAIN PEREZ, J.
Inconsistencies of the prosecution witnesses referring to the events that transpired in the buy-bust operation can overturn the judgment of conviction. As held in Zaragga v. People,[61] material inconsistencies with regard to when and where the markings on the shabu were made and the lack of inventory on the seized drugs created reasonable doubt as to the identity of the corpus delicti. Prosecution's failure to indubitably show the identity of the shabu led to the acquittal of the accused in that case.[62]
	GR No. 180504 2011-10-05	PEOPLE v. EDWIN ULAT Y AGUINALDO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The law presumes that an accused in a criminal prosecution is innocent until the contrary is proved. This basic constitutional principle is fleshed out by procedural rules which place on the prosecution the burden of proving that an accused is guilty of the offense charged by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the degree of proof has been met is largely left for the trial courts to determine. However, an appeal throws the whole case open for review such that the Court may, and generally does, look into the entire records if only to ensure that no fact of weight or substance has been overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied by the trial court.[10]
	GR No. 192188 2011-04-11	PEOPLE v. ANDREW ROBLE VELASCO JR., J.
In the instant case, no justifiable grounds were put forth by the prosecution for the procedural lapses. In his testimony, PO2 Laurel clearly stated that no inventory was made after he and his team obtained custody of the drugs. This is a patent violation of the aforementioned section. Citing Zarraga v. People,[48] the Court, in People v. Lorenzo, held that "the lack of inventory on the seized drugs create[s] reasonable doubt as to the identity of the corpus delicti."[49]
	GR No. 191366 2010-12-13	PEOPLE v. ARNOLD MARTINEZ Y ANGELES MENDOZA, J.
This Court has repeatedly reversed conviction in drug cases for failure to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, resulting in the failure to properly preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. Some cases are People v. Garcia,[39] People v. Dela Cruz,[40] People v. Dela Cruz,[41] People v. Santos, Jr.,[42] People v. Nazareno,[43] People v. Orteza,[44] Zarraga v. People,[45] and People v. Kimura.[46]
	GR No. 189844 2010-11-15	PEOPLE v. MARIO VILLANUEVA BAGA VELASCO JR., J.
Even though non-compliance with Sec. 21 of the IRR may be excused, such cannot be relied upon when there is lack of any acceptable justification for failure to do so. The Court, citing People v. Sanchez,[41] explained that "the saving clause applies only where the prosecution recognized the procedural lapses, and thereafter explained the cited justifiable grounds."[42] In this case, the prosecution provided no explanation as to why there was a contradiction as to the markings on the confiscated drugs. This is similar to what happened in Zarraga v. People,[43] where the Court held that the material inconsistencies with regard to when and where the markings on the shabu were made and the lack of inventory on the seized drugs created reasonable doubt as to the identity of the corpus delicti.
	GR No. 186498 2010-03-26	PEOPLE v. RONALDO DE GUZMAN Y DANZIL NACHURA, J.
Although the question of whether the degree of proof has been met is largely left for the trial courts to determine, an appeal throws the whole case open for review.[16] Thus, the factual findings of the trial court may be reversed if, by the evidence or the lack of it, it appears that the trial court erred.[17]
	GR No. 184546 2010-02-22	PEOPLE v. WILSON SUAN Y JOLONGON 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.
	GR No. 180870 2010-01-22	JULIUS CACAO Y PRIETO v. PEOPLE DEL CASTILLO, J.
Moreover, considering the testimony of Ancheta, it was Balolong who forwarded the seized item. It is quite strange that Ancheta would point to Balolong as the sender of the seized items if he had no basis in saying so. However, our own scrutiny of the records failed to show the role of Balolong in the operation since admittedly, the only lawmen who participated therein were Mangapit and Pang-ag. In fact, as testified to by Mangapit, Balolong proceeded to the hotel after the operation.[30] How then was Balolong able to get hold of the confiscated substance when he was neither a party to nor present during the operation? Who entrusted the substance to him assuming that somebody requested him to submit it for safekeeping? These are only some of the lingering questions which must be answered convincingly and satisfactorily so as to ensure that there had been no substitution, contamination or tampering with the sachet of shabu allegedly taken from petitioner. It must be noted that Balolong was never presented to testify in this case. Thus, there is no evidence to prove that what was turned over to the evidence custodian by Balolong and later presented in court was the same substance recovered from petitioner. The failure to establish the chain of custody is fatal to the prosecution's case. There can be no crime of illegal possession of a prohibited drug when nagging doubts persist on whether the item confiscated was the same specimen examined and established to be the prohibited drug.[31] In People v. Casimiro,[32] citing People v. Mapa,[33] we acquitted the accused for failure of the prosecution to establish the identity of the prohibited drug which constitutes the corpus delicti. Equally true in Zarraga v. People,[34] we also acquitted the accused in view of the prosecution's failure to indubitably show the identity of the shabu.
	GR No. 182528 2009-08-14	PEOPLE v. MARIAN CORECHE Y CABER CARPIO, J.
In Zarraga v. People,[19] we reversed a guilty verdict for violation of Section 5 of RA 9165 (sale of shabu) largely due to the conflicting testimonies of the police officers who conducted the sting operation on when and where the seized drugs were marked. There, we observed that: [T]here are material inconsistencies in the testimonies of Guevarra and Luna particularly with regard to when and where the markings on the shabu were made. Guevarra testified that he handed the shabu to Manglo and that he put markings on the substance.
	GR No. 177220 2009-04-24	PEOPLE v. RUBEN ROBLES Y NOVILINIO CARPIO MORALES, J.
A unique characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are not readily identifiable as in fact they are subject to scientific analysis to determine their composition and nature. The Court cannot close its eyes to the likelihood, or at least the possibility, that at any of the links in the chain of custody over the same there could have been tampering, alteration or substitution of substances from other cases -- by accident or otherwise -- in which similar evidence was seized or in which similar evidence was submitted for laboratory testing.[20] Thus, the corpus delicti should be identified with unwavering exactitude.[21]
	GR No. 182790 2009-04-24	PEOPLE v. CESAR CANTALEJO Y MANLANGIT TINGA, J.
In People v. Orteza,[19] the Court citing People v. Laxa,[20] People v. Kimura[21] and Zarraga v. People,[22] reiterated the ruling that the failure of the police to comply with the procedure in the custody of the seized drugs raises doubt as to its origins.[23]
	GR No. 181545 2008-10-08	PEOPLE v. MARK DELA CRUZ TINGA, J.
Thus, the corpus delicti should be identified with unwavering exactitude.[20]
	GR No. 179939 2008-09-29	PEOPLE v. GERALDINE MAGAT Y PADERON TINGA, J.
In Zaragga v. People,[31] involving a violation of R.A. No. 6425, the police failed to place markings on the alleged seized shabu immediately after the accused were apprehended. The buy-bust team also failed to prepare an inventory of the seized drugs which accused had to sign, as required by the same Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 3, Series of 1979. The Court held thatthe prosecution failed to establish the identity of the prohibited drug which constitutes the corpus delicti.[32]
	GR No. 174771 2007-09-11	PEOPLE v. ALLAN NAZARENO Y CABURATAN TINGA, J.
Similarly in Zarraga v. People,[33] we held that the material inconsistencies as regards when and where the markings on the shabu were made and the lack of inventory on the seized drugs created reasonable doubt as to the identity of the corpus delicti. Hence, the accused was acquitted.
	GR NO. 173051 2007-07-31	PEOPLE v. GERARDO ORTEZA TINGA, J.
More recently, in Zarraga v. People,[32] the Court held that the material inconsistencies with regard to when and where the markings on the shabu were made and the lack of inventory on the seized drugs created reasonable doubt as to the identity of the corpus delicti. The Court thus acquitted the accused due to the prosecution's failure to indubitably show the identity of the shabu.

SONNY ZARRAGA v. PEOPLE