Lawyerly

GR No. 199219

2013-04-03

PEREZ, J.

The integrity of the evidence is presumed to have been preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with. Appellants bear the burden of showing that the evidence was tampered or meddled with in order to overcome the presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers and the presumption that public officers properly discharged their duties.[20]

GR No. 177320

2012-02-22

PEOPLE v. CESAR BAUTISTA Y SANTOS

BERSAMIN, J.

As if confirming the arresting officers' observance of the rule on chain of custody, Bautista did not assail the integrity of the confiscated shabu except by insisting on being framed up by the policemen. His insistence did not deflect guilt from him, however, considering that his failure to charge the policemen with frame-up and extortion could only be regarded as his tacit admission that such evidence had not been tampered or meddled with but preserved and intact.[36]

GR No. 179344

2011-08-03

PEOPLE v. EDGARDO FERMIN Y GREGORIO

PEREZ, J.

In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) that the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified.[30] The presence of these elements is sufficient to support the trial court's finding of appellants' guilt.[31] What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused.[32] The presentation in court of the corpus delicti -- the body or substance of the crime - establishes the fact that a crime has actually been committed.[33]

GR No. 183676

2011-06-22

RUEL AMPATUAN 'ALIAS RUEL v. PEOPLE

PEREZ, J.

In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) that the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified. [19] The presence of these elements is sufficient to support the trial court's finding of appellants' guilt. [20] What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused. [21] The presentation in court of the corpus delicti -- the body or substance of the crime - establishes the fact that a crime has actually been committed. [22]

GR No. 188570

2010-07-06

PEOPLE v. CHRISTOPHER DE MESA

NACHURA, J.

In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) that the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified.[15] The presence of these elements is sufficient to support the trial court's finding of appellants' guilt.[16] What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused.[17] The presentation in court of the corpus delicti -- the body or substance of the crime - establishes the fact that a crime has actually been committed.[18]

GR No. 179710

2010-06-29

PEOPLE v. ALDRIN BERDADERO Y ARMAMENTO

DEL CASTILLO, J.

It is thus evident that the identity of the corpus delicti has been properly preserved and established by the prosecution. The appellant in this case has the burden to show that the evidence was tampered or meddled with to overcome a presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits of public officers and a presumption that public officers properly discharge their duties.[22] The appellant was unable to discharge such burden.

GR No. 172971

2010-06-16

PEOPLE v. SITTI DOMADO

BRION, J.

We note in this regard that at no time during the trial did the defense question the integrity of the evidence, by questioning either the chain of custody or the evidence of bad faith or ill will on the part of the police and the prosecution in the handling of evidence, or by proof that the evidence had been tampered with. Under the circumstances, the presumption of regularity in the handling of the exhibits by the public officers concerned and the presumption that they properly discharged their duties should already apply.[49] As the foregoing discussion shows, the integrity of the adduced evidence has never been tainted, so that it should retain its full evidentiary value.

GR No. 184804

2009-06-18

PEOPLE v. RASHAMIA HERNANDEZ Y SANTOS

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

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. Appellants in this case bear the burden of showing that the evidence was tampered or meddled with to overcome a presumption that there was regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers, and that the latter properly discharged their duties.[47] Appellants failed to produce convincing proof that the evidence submitted by the prosecution had been tampered with.

GR No. 177163

2009-04-24

PEOPLE v. ALEX BALAGAT

CARPIO MORALES, J.

An appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review. The reviewing tribunal can correct errors though unassigned in the appeal, or even reverse the trial court's decision on grounds other than those raised as errors by the parties.[11]

GR No. 181037

2009-01-19

PEOPLE v. SAIDAMEN MACATINGAG Y NAMRI

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

It is thus evident that the identity of the corpus delicti has been properly preserved and established by the prosecution. 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. The appellant in this case has the burden to show that the evidence was tampered or meddled with to overcome a presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers and a presumption that public officers properly discharge their duties.[25] Appellant failed to discharge such burden.

GR No. 171487

2008-03-14

ERMIN DACLES Y OLEDO v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

We deal first with the argument raised by the Office of the Solicitor General that it is too late for petitioner to raise the issue on the identity of the confiscated shabu. The long-standing precept is that an appeal in a criminal case throws the whole case wide open for review. [24] The reviewing tribunal can correct errors though unassigned in the appeal, or even reverse the trial court's decision on grounds other than those the parties raised as errors.[25]

	GR No. 199219 2013-04-03	PEOPLE v. GERRY OCTAVIO Y FLORENDO PEREZ, J.
The integrity of the evidence is presumed to have been preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with. Appellants bear the burden of showing that the evidence was tampered or meddled with in order to overcome the presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers and the presumption that public officers properly discharged their duties.[20]
	GR No. 177320 2012-02-22	PEOPLE v. CESAR BAUTISTA Y SANTOS BERSAMIN, J.
As if confirming the arresting officers' observance of the rule on chain of custody, Bautista did not assail the integrity of the confiscated shabu except by insisting on being framed up by the policemen. His insistence did not deflect guilt from him, however, considering that his failure to charge the policemen with frame-up and extortion could only be regarded as his tacit admission that such evidence had not been tampered or meddled with but preserved and intact.[36]
	GR No. 179344 2011-08-03	PEOPLE v. EDGARDO FERMIN Y GREGORIO PEREZ, J.
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) that the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified.[30] The presence of these elements is sufficient to support the trial court's finding of appellants' guilt.[31] What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused.[32] The presentation in court of the corpus delicti -- the body or substance of the crime - establishes the fact that a crime has actually been committed.[33]
	GR No. 183676 2011-06-22	RUEL AMPATUAN 'ALIAS RUEL v. PEOPLE PEREZ, J.
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) that the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified. [19] The presence of these elements is sufficient to support the trial court's finding of appellants' guilt. [20] What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused. [21] The presentation in court of the corpus delicti -- the body or substance of the crime - establishes the fact that a crime has actually been committed. [22]
	GR No. 188570 2010-07-06	PEOPLE v. CHRISTOPHER DE MESA NACHURA, J.
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) that the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified.[15] The presence of these elements is sufficient to support the trial court's finding of appellants' guilt.[16] What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused.[17] The presentation in court of the corpus delicti -- the body or substance of the crime - establishes the fact that a crime has actually been committed.[18]
	GR No. 179710 2010-06-29	PEOPLE v. ALDRIN BERDADERO Y ARMAMENTO DEL CASTILLO, J.
It is thus evident that the identity of the corpus delicti has been properly preserved and established by the prosecution. The appellant in this case has the burden to show that the evidence was tampered or meddled with to overcome a presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits of public officers and a presumption that public officers properly discharge their duties.[22] The appellant was unable to discharge such burden.
	GR No. 172971 2010-06-16	PEOPLE v. SITTI DOMADO BRION, J.
We note in this regard that at no time during the trial did the defense question the integrity of the evidence, by questioning either the chain of custody or the evidence of bad faith or ill will on the part of the police and the prosecution in the handling of evidence, or by proof that the evidence had been tampered with. Under the circumstances, the presumption of regularity in the handling of the exhibits by the public officers concerned and the presumption that they properly discharged their duties should already apply.[49] As the foregoing discussion shows, the integrity of the adduced evidence has never been tainted, so that it should retain its full evidentiary value.
	GR No. 184804 2009-06-18	PEOPLE v. RASHAMIA HERNANDEZ Y SANTOS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
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. Appellants in this case bear the burden of showing that the evidence was tampered or meddled with to overcome a presumption that there was regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers, and that the latter properly discharged their duties.[47] Appellants failed to produce convincing proof that the evidence submitted by the prosecution had been tampered with.
	GR No. 177163 2009-04-24	PEOPLE v. ALEX BALAGAT CARPIO MORALES, J.
An appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review. The reviewing tribunal can correct errors though unassigned in the appeal, or even reverse the trial court's decision on grounds other than those raised as errors by the parties.[11]
	GR No. 181037 2009-01-19	PEOPLE v. SAIDAMEN MACATINGAG Y NAMRI YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
It is thus evident that the identity of the corpus delicti has been properly preserved and established by the prosecution. 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. The appellant in this case has the burden to show that the evidence was tampered or meddled with to overcome a presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers and a presumption that public officers properly discharge their duties.[25] Appellant failed to discharge such burden.
	GR No. 171487 2008-03-14	ERMIN DACLES Y OLEDO v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We deal first with the argument raised by the Office of the Solicitor General that it is too late for petitioner to raise the issue on the identity of the confiscated shabu. The long-standing precept is that an appeal in a criminal case throws the whole case wide open for review. [24] The reviewing tribunal can correct errors though unassigned in the appeal, or even reverse the trial court's decision on grounds other than those the parties raised as errors.[25]

PEOPLE v. MARILYN MIRANDA Y RAMA