This case has been cited 25 times or more.
|
2014-03-10 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| In the present case, the totality of the prosecution's evidence shows the integrity of the drugs seized to be intact. The identity of the drugs was proven and the chain of its custody and possession has been duly accounted for and not broken. This can be gleaned from the testimonies of Espejo and Arce who narrated that from the moment the items were seized from appellant, the same were brought to the police station where Espejo marked them with his initials "MC-1," "MC-2" and "MC-3," properly inventoried, and, together with the laboratory request, were immediately delivered by Espejo himself to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination to determine the presence of dangerous drugs. Police Inspector Melanie Joy Ordoño conducted an examination on the specimens submitted with the corresponding markings and concluded that the three heat sealed transparent plastic sachets contained methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. Incidentally, this conclusion is bolstered by the defense's admission[18] of the existence and due execution of the request for laboratory examination, the Chemistry Report and the specimens submitted. Moreover, Espejo, when confronted during trial, identified the three plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance as the very same items confiscated from the appellant.[19] Under the situation, this Court finds no circumstance whatsoever that would hint any doubt as to the identity, integrity and evidentiary value of the items subject matter of this case. "Besides, 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"[20] and in such case, the burden of proof rests on the appellant.[21] Here, appellant miserably failed to discharge this burden. Moreover, and as aptly observed by the CA, appellant did not seasonably question these procedural gaps before the trial court. Suffice it to say that objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.[22] | |||||
|
2013-02-06 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Although it appears that the buy-bust team did not literally observe all the requirements, like photographing the confiscated drugs in the presence of the accused, of a representative from the media and from the Department of Justice, and of any elected public official who should be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy of it, whatever justification the members of the buy-bust team had to render in order to explain their non- observance of all the requirements would remain unrevealed because the accused did not assail such non-compliance during the trial. He raised the matter for the first time only in the CA. As such, the Court cannot now dwell on the matter because to do so would be against the tenets of fair play and equity. That is what the Court said in People v. Sta. Maria,[25] to wit: The law excuses non-compliance under justifiable grounds. However, whatever justifiable grounds may excuse the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation in this case from complying with Section 21 will remain unknown, because appellant did not question during trial the safekeeping of the items seized from him. Indeed, the police officers' alleged violations of Sections 21 and 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 were not raised before the trial court but were instead raised for the first time on appeal. In no instance did appellant least intimate at the trial court that there were lapses in the safekeeping of seized items that affected their integrity and evidentiary value. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such objection, he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal. | |||||
|
2012-11-26 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Significantly, in no instance did appellant manifest or at least intimate before the trial court that there were lapses in the handling and safekeeping of the seized item that might affect its admissibility, integrity and evidentiary value. When a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such objection, he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal as we ruled in People v. Sta. Maria[13] and reiterated in People v. Hernandez.[14] | |||||
|
2012-11-26 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| It should be noted that the alleged non-compliance with Section 21 of Article II of R.A. No. 9165 was not raised before the trial court but only for the first time on appeal. This cannot be done. In People v. Sta. Maria,[19] People v. Hernandez,[20] and People v. Lazaro, Jr.,[21] among others, in which the very same issue was belatedly raised, we ruled: x x x Indeed the police officers' alleged violations of Sections 21 and 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 were not raised before the trial court but were instead raised for the first time on appeal. In no instance did appellant least intimate at the trial court that there were lapses in the safekeeping of seized items that affected their integrity and evidentiary value. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such objection, he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal. | |||||
|
2012-09-05 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| However, as correctly ruled by the CA, this Court has already held in People v. Sta. Maria[35] that: [T]he failure of the law enforcers to comply strictly with Section 21 was not fatal. It did not render [the] appellant's arrest illegal nor the evidence adduced against him inadmissible. | |||||
|
2012-02-29 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, as the Court of Appeals said, Mendoza only questioned the chain of custody when she appealed her conviction. This issue was neither raised nor mentioned during the trial before the RTC. Whatever justifiable ground may excuse the prosecution from complying with the statutory requirements on chain of custody will remain in obscurity but will not adversely affect the prosecution's case if not timely questioned during the trial. In People v. Sta. Maria,[34] the Court held: The law excuses non-compliance under justifiable grounds. However, whatever justifiable grounds may excuse the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation in this case from complying with Section 21 will remain unknown, because appellant did not question during trial the safekeeping of the items seized from him. Indeed, the police officers' alleged violations of Sections 21 and 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 were not raised before the trial court but were instead raised for the first time on appeal. In no instance did appellant least intimate at the trial court that there were lapses in the safekeeping of seized items that affected their integrity and evidentiary value. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such objection he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal.[35] | |||||
|
2012-02-08 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| As to the position of Arriola that the buy-bust operation was illegal because of the absence of coordination between the buy-bust team and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), the CA debunked it citing People v. Sta. Maria[6] where the Court held that there is nothing in R.A. No. 9165 which indicates an intention on the part of the legislature to consider an arrest made without the participation of the PDEA illegal and evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible. | |||||
|
2011-12-14 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The law excuses non-compliance under justifiable grounds. However, whatever justifiable grounds may excuse the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation in this case from complying with Section 21 will remain unknown, because appellant did not question during trial the safekeeping of the items seized from him. Indeed, the police officers' alleged violations of Sections 21 and 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 were not raised before the trial court but were instead raised for the first time on appeal. In no instance did appellant least intimate at the trial court that there were lapses in the safekeeping of seized items that affected their integrity and evidentiary value. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such objection he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal.[52] | |||||
|
2011-10-12 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| We did observe that the police failed to check the box marked "buy-bust operation" in its Pre-Operation and Coordination Report. However, standing alone, this minor omission does not affect the finding of guilt of accused-appellant. As ruled by the Court in People v. Sta. Maria,[51] | |||||
|
2011-03-30 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| We note further that the defense raised its objection and questioned the integrity of the shabu allegedly seized from Dela Cruz only on appeal. Failure to raise this issue during trial is fatal to the case of the defense.[30] We explained in People v. Sta. Maria[31] that: The law excuses non-compliance under justifiable grounds. However, whatever justifiable grounds may excuse the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation in this case from complying with Section 21 will remain unknown, because appellant did not question during trial the safekeeping of the items seized from him. Indeed, the police officers' alleged violations of Sections 21 and 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 were not raised before the trial court but were instead raised for the first time on appeal. In no instance did appellant least intimate at the trial court that there were lapses in the safekeeping of seized items that affected their integrity and evidentiary value. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such objection he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal.[32] | |||||
|
2011-01-31 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Moreover, We take notice of Vicente, Jr.'s belated objection to the alleged lapses committed by the buy-bust team. People v. Sta. Maria[25] does not support this move: The law excuses non-compliance under justifiable grounds. However, whatever justifiable grounds may excuse the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation in this case from complying with Section 21 will remain unknown, because appellant did not question during trial the safekeeping of the items seized from him. Indeed, the police officers' alleged violations of Sections 21 and 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 were not raised before the trial court but were instead raised for the first time on appeal. In no instance did appellant least intimate at the trial court that there were lapses in the safekeeping of seized items that affected their integrity and evidentiary value. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such objection he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal. | |||||
|
2010-12-13 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Regarding the lack of prior coordination with the PDEA provided in Section 86 of R.A. No. 9165, in People v. Sta. Maria,[65] this Court held that said section was silent as to the consequences of such failure, and said silence could not be interpreted as a legislative intent to make an arrest without the participation of PDEA illegal, nor evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible. Section 86 is explicit only in saying that the PDEA shall be the "lead agency" in the investigation and prosecution of drug-related cases. Therefore, other law enforcement bodies still possess authority to perform similar functions as the PDEA as long as illegal drugs cases will eventually be transferred to the latter. | |||||
|
2010-08-08 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| It must be stressed that said "justifiable ground" will remain unknown in the light of the apparent failure of the accused-appellant to challenge the custody and safekeeping or the issue of disposition and preservation of the subject drugs and drug paraphernalia before the RTC. She cannot be allowed too late in the day to question the police officers' alleged non-compliance with Section 21 for the first time on appeal.[30] In People v. Sta. Maria,[31] in which the very same issue was raised, We ruled: Indeed, the police officers' alleged violations of Sections 21 and 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 were not raised before the trial court but were instead raised for the first time on appeal. In no instance did appellant least intimate at the trial court that there were lapses in the safekeeping of seized items that affected their integrity and evidentiary value. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such objection he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal. (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2010-07-26 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The law excuses non-compliance under justifiable grounds. However, whatever justifiable grounds may excuse the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation in this case from complying with Section 21 will remain unknown, because appellant did not question during trial the safekeeping of the items seized from him. Indeed, the police officers' alleged violations of Sections 21 and 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 were not raised before the trial court but were instead raised for the first time on appeal. In no instance did appellant least intimate at the trial court that there were lapses in the safekeeping of seized items that affected their integrity and evidentiary value. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such objection he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal.[28] | |||||
|
2010-06-29 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| A perusal of the foregoing provision shows that it is silent as to the consequences of failure on the part of the law enforcers to seek the authority of the PDEA prior to conducting a buy-bust operation, in the same way that the IRR is likewise silent on the matter. However, by no stretch of imagination could this silence be interpreted as a legislative intent to make an arrest without the participation of PDEA illegal or evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible.[23] | |||||
|
2010-03-03 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| As here, the solicitation of drugs from appellant by the informant utilized by the police merely furnishes evidence of a course of conduct. The police received an intelligence report that appellant has been habitually dealing in illegal drugs. They duly acted on it by utilizing an informant to effect a drug transaction with appellant. There was no showing that the informant induced the appellant to sell illegal drugs to him.[16] | |||||
|
2009-11-27 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Finally, the accused-appellants contend that the prosecution evidence failed to show compliance with the requirements of law for handling evidence.But, as has been held in a recent case,[23] failure to comply strictly with those requirements will not render the seizure of the prohibited drugs invalid for so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers.Besides, the accused-appellants did not raise it before the trial court, hence, they cannot raise it for the first time on appeal.[24] | |||||
|
2009-10-16 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It should be noted that appellant raised the buy-bust team's alleged non-compliance with Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 for the first time on appeal. This, he cannot do. It is too late in the day for him to do so. In People v. Sta. Maria[49] in which the very same issue was raised, we held: The law excuses non-compliance under justifiable grounds. However, whatever justifiable grounds may excuse the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation in this case from complying with Section 21 will remain unknown, because appellant did not question during trial the safekeeping of the items seized from him. Indeed, the police officers' alleged violations of Sections 21 and 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 were not raised before the trial court but were instead raised for the first time on appeal. In no instance did appellant least intimate at the trial court that there were lapses in the safekeeping of seized items that affected their integrity and evidentiary value. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such objection, he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal." (Emphases supplied.) | |||||
|
2009-06-18 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It should be noted that appellants tried to raise the buy-bust team's alleged non-compliance with Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 for the first time on appeal. This, they cannot do. It is too late in the day for them to do so. In People v. Sta. Maria,[36] in which the very same issue was raised, we held:The law excuses non-compliance under justifiable grounds. However, whatever justifiable grounds may excuse the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation in this case from complying with Section 21 will remain unknown, because appellant did not question during trial the safekeeping of the items seized from him. Indeed, the police officers' alleged violations of Sections 21 and 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 were not raised before the trial court but were instead raised for the first time on appeal. In no instance did appellant least intimate at the trial court that there were lapses in the safekeeping of seized items that affected their integrity and evidentiary value. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such objection, he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal. (Emphases supplied.) | |||||
|
2008-10-17 |
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. | |||||
|
2008-07-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In the case at bar, the records are unclouded that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the drug items seized from defendant-appellant during the buy-bust operation were properly preserved and safeguarded. The specimen was adequately marked, and then dispatched to the Crime Laboratory for the requisite Chemistry Report conducted by Forensic Chemist Engr. Leonard Jabonillo. What is even more telling is the fact that accused-appellant was not shown to have challenged the custody or the issue of disposition and preservation of the subject drug before the RTC. And neither did he raise objections before the Court of Appeals. Accused-appellant cannot be allowed too late in the day to question the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.[37] Thus, in People v. Sta. Maria,[38] this Court underscored the rule that objection to the admissibility of evidence raised for the first time on appeal cannot be considered:Indeed, the police officers' alleged violations of Sections 21 and 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 were not raised before the trial court but were instead raised for the first time on appeal. In no instance did appellant least intimate at the trial court that there were lapses in the safekeeping of seized items that affected their integrity and evidentiary value. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such objection he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal.[39] | |||||
|
2008-07-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Non-compliance with the aforesaid sections does not mean that no buy-bust operation against appellant ever took place. The failure of the police operatives to comply with Section 86 will neither render her arrest illegal nor the evidence seized from her inadmissible. In People v. Sta. Maria,[50] we have ruled on the same issue as follows:Appellant would next argue that the evidence against him was obtained in violation of Sections 21 and 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 because the buy-bust operation was made without any involvement of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). Prescinding therefrom, he concludes that the prosecution's evidence, both testimonial and documentary, was inadmissible having been procured in violation of his constitutional right against illegal arrest. | |||||
|
2008-06-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| As here, the solicitation of drugs from appellant by the informant utilized by the police merely furnishes evidence of a course of conduct. The police received an intelligence report that appellant has been habitually dealing in illegal drugs. They duly acted on it by utilizing an informant to effect a drug transaction with appellant. There was no showing that the informant induced the appellant to sell illegal drugs to him.[22] Conversely, the law deplores instigation or inducement, which occurs when the police or its agent devises the idea of committing the crime and lures the accused into executing the offense. Instigation absolves the accused of any guilt, given the spontaneous moral revulsion from using the powers of government to beguile innocent but ductile persons into lapses that they might otherwise resist.[23] | |||||
|
2008-04-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| At the outset, it must be stated that appellant raised the police officers' alleged non-compliance with Section 21[21] of Republic Act No. 9165 for the first time on appeal. This, he cannot do. It is too late in the day for him to do so. In People v. Sta. Maria[22] in which the very same issue was raised, we ruled:The law excuses non-compliance under justifiable grounds. However, whatever justifiable grounds may excuse the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation in this case from complying with Section 21 will remain unknown, because appellant did not question during trial the safekeeping of the items seized from him. Indeed, the police officers' alleged violations of Sections 21 and 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 were not raised before the trial court but were instead raised for the first time on appeal. In no instance did appellant least intimate at the trial court that there were lapses in the safekeeping of seized items that affected their integrity and evidentiary value. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such objection he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal. (Emphases supplied.) In People v. Pringas,[23] we explained that non-compliance with Section 21 will not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. In the case at bar, appellant never questioned the custody and disposition of the drug that was taken from him. In fact, he stipulated that the drug subject matter of this case was forwarded to PNP Regional Crime Laboratory Office 3, Malolos, Bulacan for laboratory examination which examination gave positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. We thus find the integrity and the evidentiary value of the drug seized from appellant not to have been compromised. | |||||
|
2007-08-31 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In the Joint Affidavit of Arrest, it is stated that "That, on or about 10:30 PM April 22, 2003, as instructed by SPO4 DANILO TUAÑO, OIC/SDEU, this Office effected a coordination to (sic) Metro Manila Regional Office of PDEA and formed a team of SDEU operatives with a confidential informant to conduct anti-narcotics/Buy-bust operation against the said person x x x."[42] This portion of the affidavit clearly negates appellant's claim that the buy-bust operation subject of the case was not with the involvement of the PDEA. Even assuming ex gratia argumenti that the aforementioned statement was not contained in the affidavit, appellant's claim of lack of involvement of the PDEA will render neither his arrest illegal nor the evidence seized from him inadmissible. Quoting People v. Sta. Maria,[43] we resolved the very same issue in this wise:Appellant would next argue that the evidence against him was obtained in violation of Sections 21 and 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 because the buy-bust operation was made without any involvement of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). Prescinding therefrom, he concludes that the prosecution's evidence, both testimonial and documentary, was inadmissible having been procured in violation of his constitutional right against illegal arrest. | |||||