Lawyerly

GR No. 202701

2014-09-10

PEREZ, J.

The prosecution failed to establish the elements of the crime; the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the corpus delicti, much less, the identity of the corpus delicti with moral certainty. As We already held, when there are doubts on whether the seized substance was the same substance examined and established to be the prohibited drug, there can be no crime of illegal possession or illegal sale of a prohibited drug.[14] Such is the case at bar. Failure to prove that the specimen allegedly seized from the accused was the same one presented in court is fatal to the prosecution's case.

GR No. 190177

2014-06-11

PEOPLE v. VIVIAN BULOTANO Y AMANTE

PEREZ, J.

In Mallillin v. People,[21] the Court explained that the "chain of custody" requirement ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. The chain of evidence is constructed by proper exhibit handling, storage, labelling and recording, and must exist from the time the evidence is found until the time it is offered in evidence.[22] Failure to prove that the specimen submitted for laboratory examination was the same one allegedly seized from accused is fatal to the prosecution's case. When there are doubts on whether the item confiscated was the same specimen examined and established to be the prohibited drug, there can be no crime of illegal possession or illegal sale of a prohibited drug.[23]

GR No. 201363

2013-03-18

PEOPLE v. NAZARENO VILLAREAL Y LUALHATI

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

For the warrantless arrest under paragraph (a) of Section 5 to operate, two elements must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.[19] On the other hand, paragraph (b) of Section 5 requires for its application that at the time of the arrest, an offense had in fact just been committed and the arresting officer had personal knowledge of facts indicating that the appellant had committed it.[20]

GR No. 173474

2012-08-29

PEOPLE v. REYNALDO BELOCURA Y PEREZ

BERSAMIN, J.

Belocura was caught in flagrante delicto violating Section 31 of Republic Act No. 4139 (The Land Transportation and Traffic Code).[21] In flagrante delicto means in the very act of committing the crime. To be caught in flagrante delicto necessarily implies the positive identification of the culprit by an eyewitness or eyewitnesses. Such identification is a direct evidence of culpability, because it "proves the fact in dispute without the aid of any inference or presumption."[22] Even by his own admission, he was actually committing a crime in the presence or within the view of the arresting policemen. Such manner by which Belocura was apprehended fell under the first category in Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. The arrest was valid, therefore, and the arresting policemen thereby became cloaked with the authority to validly search his person and effects for weapons or any other article he might use in the commission of the crime or was the fruit of the crime or might be used as evidence in the trial of the case, and to seize from him and the area within his reach or under his control, like the jeep, such weapon or other article. The evident purpose of the incidental search was to protect the arresting policemen from being harmed by him with the use of a concealed weapon. Accordingly, the warrantless character of the arrest could not by itself be the basis of his acquittal.[23]

GR No. 197788

2012-02-29

RODEL LUZ Y ONG v. PEOPLE

SERENO, J.

The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.[23] Any evidence obtained in violation of said right shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. While the power to search and seize may at times be necessary to the public welfare, still it must be exercised and the law implemented without contravening the constitutional rights of citizens, for the enforcement of no statute is of sufficient importance to justify indifference to the basic principles of government.[24]

GR No. 176077

2011-08-31

ABRAHAM MICLAT v. PEOPLE

PERALTA, J.

At the outset, it is apparent that petitioner raised no objection to the irregularity of his arrest before his arraignment. Considering this and his active participation in the trial of the case, jurisprudence dictates that petitioner is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court, thereby curing any defect in his arrest.[11] An accused is estopped from assailing any irregularity of his arrest if he fails to raise this issue or to move for the quashal of the information against him on this ground before arraignment. Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.[12]

GR No. 182178

2011-08-15

STEPHEN SY Y TIBAGONG v. PEOPLE

PERALTA, J.

As to the admissibility of the seized drug in evidence, it is necessary for us to ascertain whether or not the search which yielded the alleged contraband was lawful.[12]

GR No. 184761

2010-09-08

PEOPLE v. JULIUS GADIANA Y REPOLLO

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Chain of custody establishes the identity of the subject substance.[17] It requires that testimony be presented about every link in the chain, from the moment the item is seized up to the time it is offered in evidence.[18] When nagging doubts persist on whether the item confiscated is the same specimen examined and established to be prohibited drug,[19] there can be no crime of illegal possession of a prohibited drug.

GR No. 186529

2010-08-03

PEOPLE v. JACK RACHO Y RAQUERO

NACHURA, J.

We have repeatedly held that the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal. However, this is not a hard and fast rule. We have reviewed such factual findings when there is a showing that the trial judge overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that would have affected the case.[13]

GR No. 180505

2010-06-29

PEOPLE v. MARIO MIGUEL Y BERNABE

PEREZ, J.

In order to successfully prosecute an accused for illegal sale of drugs, the prosecution must be able to prove the following elements: (1) identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[14] Material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale had actually taken place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[15] The term corpus delicti means the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged.

GR No. 184760

2010-04-23

PEOPLE v. PATERNO LORENZO Y CASAS

PEREZ, J.

In order to successfully prosecute an accused for illegal sale of drugs, the prosecution must be able to prove the following elements: (1) identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[9] Material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale had actually taken place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[10] The term corpus delicti means the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged.

GR No. 186498

2010-03-26

PEOPLE v. RONALDO DE GUZMAN Y DANZIL

NACHURA, J.

The findings of fact of the trial court are accorded great respect, even finality when affirmed by the CA, in the absence of any clear showing that some facts and circumstances of weight or substance that could have affected the result of the case have been overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied.[15]

GR No. 184546

2010-02-22

PEOPLE v. WILSON SUAN Y JOLONGON

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Verily, there is a break in the chain of custody of the seized substance. The standard operating procedure on the seizure and custody of the drug as mandated in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations was not complied with. As we observed, the chain of custody of the drug from the time the same was turned over to the Team Leader, as testified by PO2 Labasano or the Records Custodian as related by PO1 Gondol, to the time of submission to the crime laboratory was not clearly shown. There is no indication whether the Team Leader and the Records Custodian were one and the same person. Neither was there reference to the person who submitted it to the crime laboratory. The prosecution needs to establish that the Team Leader or Records Custodian indeed submitted such particular drug to the crime laboratory for examination. The failure on the part of the Team Leader or Records Custodian as the case may be, to testify on what he did with the drug while he was in possession resulted in a break in the chain of custody of the drug. There is obviously a missing link from the point when the drug was in his hands to the point when the same was submitted for examination. The failure to establish the evidence's chain of custody is fatal to the prosecution's case. Under no circumstance can we consider or even safely assume that the integrity and evidentiary value of the drug was properly preserved by the apprehending officers. 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]

GR No. 175832

2008-10-15

PEOPLE v. SALVADOR SANCHEZ Y ESPIRITU

BRION, J.

Proof beyond reasonable doubt demands that unwavering exactitude be observed in establishing the corpus delicti: every fact necessary to constitute the crime must be established.[27] The chain of custody requirement performs this function in buy-bust operations as it ensures that doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[28] In a long line of cases, we have considered it fatal for the prosecution to fail to prove that the specimen submitted for laboratory examination was the same one allegedly seized from the accused.[29]

GR No. 181747

2008-09-26

PEOPLE v. NARCISO AGULAY Y LOPEZ

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Witness pointing to a man who identified himself as Narciso Agulay and his nickname is "Sing."[14] His testimony was corroborated on material points by PO1 Riparip, one of the back-up operatives in the buy-bust operation that night, to wit: FIS. JURADO:

	GR No. 202701 2014-09-10	PEOPLE v. EDILBERTO BALIBAY Y LABIS PEREZ, J.
The prosecution failed to establish the elements of the crime; the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the corpus delicti, much less, the identity of the corpus delicti with moral certainty. As We already held, when there are doubts on whether the seized substance was the same substance examined and established to be the prohibited drug, there can be no crime of illegal possession or illegal sale of a prohibited drug.[14] Such is the case at bar. Failure to prove that the specimen allegedly seized from the accused was the same one presented in court is fatal to the prosecution's case.
	GR No. 190177 2014-06-11	PEOPLE v. VIVIAN BULOTANO Y AMANTE PEREZ, J.
In Mallillin v. People,[21] the Court explained that the "chain of custody" requirement ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. The chain of evidence is constructed by proper exhibit handling, storage, labelling and recording, and must exist from the time the evidence is found until the time it is offered in evidence.[22] Failure to prove that the specimen submitted for laboratory examination was the same one allegedly seized from accused is fatal to the prosecution's case. When there are doubts on whether the item confiscated was the same specimen examined and established to be the prohibited drug, there can be no crime of illegal possession or illegal sale of a prohibited drug.[23]
	GR No. 201363 2013-03-18	PEOPLE v. NAZARENO VILLAREAL Y LUALHATI PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
For the warrantless arrest under paragraph (a) of Section 5 to operate, two elements must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.[19] On the other hand, paragraph (b) of Section 5 requires for its application that at the time of the arrest, an offense had in fact just been committed and the arresting officer had personal knowledge of facts indicating that the appellant had committed it.[20]
	GR No. 173474 2012-08-29	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO BELOCURA Y PEREZ BERSAMIN, J.
Belocura was caught in flagrante delicto violating Section 31 of Republic Act No. 4139 (The Land Transportation and Traffic Code).[21] In flagrante delicto means in the very act of committing the crime. To be caught in flagrante delicto necessarily implies the positive identification of the culprit by an eyewitness or eyewitnesses. Such identification is a direct evidence of culpability, because it "proves the fact in dispute without the aid of any inference or presumption."[22] Even by his own admission, he was actually committing a crime in the presence or within the view of the arresting policemen. Such manner by which Belocura was apprehended fell under the first category in Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. The arrest was valid, therefore, and the arresting policemen thereby became cloaked with the authority to validly search his person and effects for weapons or any other article he might use in the commission of the crime or was the fruit of the crime or might be used as evidence in the trial of the case, and to seize from him and the area within his reach or under his control, like the jeep, such weapon or other article. The evident purpose of the incidental search was to protect the arresting policemen from being harmed by him with the use of a concealed weapon. Accordingly, the warrantless character of the arrest could not by itself be the basis of his acquittal.[23]
	GR No. 197788 2012-02-29	RODEL LUZ Y ONG v. PEOPLE SERENO, J.
The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.[23] Any evidence obtained in violation of said right shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. While the power to search and seize may at times be necessary to the public welfare, still it must be exercised and the law implemented without contravening the constitutional rights of citizens, for the enforcement of no statute is of sufficient importance to justify indifference to the basic principles of government.[24]
	GR No. 176077 2011-08-31	ABRAHAM MICLAT v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
At the outset, it is apparent that petitioner raised no objection to the irregularity of his arrest before his arraignment. Considering this and his active participation in the trial of the case, jurisprudence dictates that petitioner is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court, thereby curing any defect in his arrest.[11] An accused is estopped from assailing any irregularity of his arrest if he fails to raise this issue or to move for the quashal of the information against him on this ground before arraignment. Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.[12]
	GR No. 182178 2011-08-15	STEPHEN SY Y TIBAGONG v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
As to the admissibility of the seized drug in evidence, it is necessary for us to ascertain whether or not the search which yielded the alleged contraband was lawful.[12]
	GR No. 184761 2010-09-08	PEOPLE v. JULIUS GADIANA Y REPOLLO CARPIO MORALES, J.
Chain of custody establishes the identity of the subject substance.[17] It requires that testimony be presented about every link in the chain, from the moment the item is seized up to the time it is offered in evidence.[18] When nagging doubts persist on whether the item confiscated is the same specimen examined and established to be prohibited drug,[19] there can be no crime of illegal possession of a prohibited drug.
	GR No. 186529 2010-08-03	PEOPLE v. JACK RACHO Y RAQUERO NACHURA, J.
We have repeatedly held that the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal. However, this is not a hard and fast rule. We have reviewed such factual findings when there is a showing that the trial judge overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that would have affected the case.[13]
	GR No. 180505 2010-06-29	PEOPLE v. MARIO MIGUEL Y BERNABE PEREZ, J.
In order to successfully prosecute an accused for illegal sale of drugs, the prosecution must be able to prove the following elements: (1) identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[14] Material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale had actually taken place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[15] The term corpus delicti means the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged.
	GR No. 184760 2010-04-23	PEOPLE v. PATERNO LORENZO Y CASAS PEREZ, J.
In order to successfully prosecute an accused for illegal sale of drugs, the prosecution must be able to prove the following elements: (1) identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[9] Material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale had actually taken place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[10] The term corpus delicti means the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged.
	GR No. 186498 2010-03-26	PEOPLE v. RONALDO DE GUZMAN Y DANZIL NACHURA, J.
The findings of fact of the trial court are accorded great respect, even finality when affirmed by the CA, in the absence of any clear showing that some facts and circumstances of weight or substance that could have affected the result of the case have been overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied.[15]
	GR No. 184546 2010-02-22	PEOPLE v. WILSON SUAN Y JOLONGON DEL CASTILLO, J.
Verily, there is a break in the chain of custody of the seized substance. The standard operating procedure on the seizure and custody of the drug as mandated in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations was not complied with. As we observed, the chain of custody of the drug from the time the same was turned over to the Team Leader, as testified by PO2 Labasano or the Records Custodian as related by PO1 Gondol, to the time of submission to the crime laboratory was not clearly shown. There is no indication whether the Team Leader and the Records Custodian were one and the same person. Neither was there reference to the person who submitted it to the crime laboratory. The prosecution needs to establish that the Team Leader or Records Custodian indeed submitted such particular drug to the crime laboratory for examination. The failure on the part of the Team Leader or Records Custodian as the case may be, to testify on what he did with the drug while he was in possession resulted in a break in the chain of custody of the drug. There is obviously a missing link from the point when the drug was in his hands to the point when the same was submitted for examination. The failure to establish the evidence's chain of custody is fatal to the prosecution's case. Under no circumstance can we consider or even safely assume that the integrity and evidentiary value of the drug was properly preserved by the apprehending officers. 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]
	GR No. 175832 2008-10-15	PEOPLE v. SALVADOR SANCHEZ Y ESPIRITU BRION, J.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt demands that unwavering exactitude be observed in establishing the corpus delicti: every fact necessary to constitute the crime must be established.[27] The chain of custody requirement performs this function in buy-bust operations as it ensures that doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[28] In a long line of cases, we have considered it fatal for the prosecution to fail to prove that the specimen submitted for laboratory examination was the same one allegedly seized from the accused.[29]
	GR No. 181747 2008-09-26	PEOPLE v. NARCISO AGULAY Y LOPEZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Witness pointing to a man who identified himself as Narciso Agulay and his nickname is "Sing."[14] His testimony was corroborated on material points by PO1 Riparip, one of the back-up operatives in the buy-bust operation that night, to wit: FIS. JURADO:

ARSENIO VERGARA VALDEZ v. PEOPLE