Lawyerly

GR No.191023

2013-02-06

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

x x x there is nothing in Republic Act No. 9165 or in its implementing rules, which requires each and everyone who came into contact with the seized drugs to testify in court. "As long as the chain of custody of the seized drug was clearly established to have not been broken and the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized, it is not indispensable that each and every person who came into possession of the drugs should take the witness stand." This Court, in People v. Hernandez,[33] citing People v. Zeng Hua Dian,[34] ruled: After a thorough review of the records of this case we find that the chain of custody of the seized substance was not broken and that the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized in this case. The non- presentation as witnesses of other persons such as SPO1 Grafia, the evidence custodian, and PO3 Alamia, the officer on duty, is not a crucial point against the prosecution. The matter of presentation of witnesses by the prosecution is not for the court to decide. The prosecution has the discretion as to how to present its case and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses.[35]

GR No. 186530

2011-12-14

PEOPLE v. NELLY ULAMA Y ARRISMA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Likewise, we have also ruled that "[t]he prosecution has the discretion as to how to present its case and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses."[20] Thus, appellant's argument that the prosecution's failure to present the chief investigator in court is fatal to its case cannot prosper.

GR No. 186131

2011-12-14

PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN AMANSEC Y DOÑA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Furthermore, there is nothing in Republic Act No. 9165 or in its implementing rules, which requires each and everyone who came into contact with the seized drugs to testify in court. "As long as the chain of custody of the seized drug was clearly established to have not been broken and the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized, it is not indispensable that each and every person who came into possession of the drugs should take the witness stand."[48] This Court, in People v. Hernandez,[49] citing People v. Zeng Hua Dian,[50] ruled: After a thorough review of the records of this case we find that the chain of custody of the seized substance was not broken and that the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized in this case. The non-presentation as witnesses of other persons such as SPO1 Grafia, the evidence custodian, and PO3 Alamia, the officer on duty, is not a crucial point against the prosecution. The matter of presentation of witnesses by the prosecution is not for the court to decide. The prosecution has the discretion as to how to present its case and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses.[51]

GR No. 174097

2010-07-21

PEOPLE v. SONNY PADUA Y REYES

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The fact that the persons who had possession or custody of the subject drugs, such as Forensic Chemist Rivera-Dagasdas and the alleged investigator, were not presented as witnesses to corroborate SPO2 Aguilar's testimony is of no moment. The non-presentation as witnesses of other persons such as the investigator and the forensic chemist, is not a crucial point against the prosecution. The matter of presentation of witnesses by the prosecution is not for the court to decide. The prosecution has the discretion as to how to present its case and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses.[24]

GR No. 188900

2010-03-05

PEOPLE v. FERNANDO HABANA Y ORANTE

ABAD, J.

But no rule requires the prosecution to present as witness in a drugs case every person who had something to do with the arrest of the accused and the seizure of prohibited drugs from him. The discretion on which witness to present in every case belongs to the prosecutor.[21]

GR No. 186418

2009-10-16

PEOPLE v. ALFREDO LAZARO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Further, not all people who came into contact with the seized drugs are required to testify in court. There is nothing in Republic Act No. 9165 or in any rule implementing the same that imposes such a requirement. As long as the chain of custody of the seized drug was clearly established not to have been broken and that the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized, it is not indispensable that each and every person who came into possession of the drugs should take the witness stand.[54] In People v. Zeng Hua Dian,[55] we ruled: After a thorough review of the records of this case, we find that the chain of custody of the seized substance was not broken and that the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized in this case. The non-presentation as witnesses of other persons such as SPO1 Grafia, the evidence custodian, and PO3 Alamia, the officer on duty, is not a crucial point against the prosecution. The matter of presentation of witnesses by the prosecution is not for the court to decide. The prosecution has the discretion as to how to present its case and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses.

GR No. 184804

2009-06-18

PEOPLE v. RASHAMIA HERNANDEZ Y SANTOS

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The fact that Inspector Tiu was not presented as a witness to corroborate PO2 Dimacali's testimony does not warrant appellants' acquittal of the crime charged. Not all people who came into contact with the seized drugs are required to testify in court. There is nothing in Republic Act No. 9165 or in any rule implementing the same that imposes such a requirement. As long as the chain of custody of the seized drug was clearly established to have not been broken and the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized, it is not indispensable that each and every person who came into possession of the drugs should take the witness stand. In People v. Zeng Hua Dian,[48] we ruled:After a thorough review of the records of this case we find that the chain of custody of the seized substance was not broken and that the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized in this case. The non-presentation as witnesses of other persons such as SPO1 Grafia, the evidence custodian, and PO3 Alamia, the officer on duty, is not a crucial point against the prosecution. The matter of presentation of witnesses by the prosecution is not for the court to decide. The prosecution has the discretion as to how to present its case and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses.

GR No. 182347

2008-10-17

PEOPLE v. EMILIO RIVERA Y CABLANG

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The non-presentation as witnesses of other persons such as the other police officers forming a buy-bust team is not a crucial point against the prosecution[28] since the matter of presentation of witnesses by the prosecution is not for the court to decide. It is the prosecution which has the discretion as to how to present its case and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses.[29] Moreover, the testimony of a single prosecution witness, if credible and positive and satisfies the court as to the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt,[30] is enough to sustain a conviction.

GR NO. 175593

2007-10-17

PEOPLE v. SALVADOR SANTOS

TINGA, J.

In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified.[28] What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the dangerous drug. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummates the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused.[29]

GR NO. 173051

2007-07-31

PEOPLE v. GERARDO ORTEZA

TINGA, J.

In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified. [27] 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.[28]

	GR No.191023 2013-02-06	DON DJOWEL SALES Y ABALAHIN v. PEOPLE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
x x x there is nothing in Republic Act No. 9165 or in its implementing rules, which requires each and everyone who came into contact with the seized drugs to testify in court. "As long as the chain of custody of the seized drug was clearly established to have not been broken and the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized, it is not indispensable that each and every person who came into possession of the drugs should take the witness stand." This Court, in People v. Hernandez,[33] citing People v. Zeng Hua Dian,[34] ruled: After a thorough review of the records of this case we find that the chain of custody of the seized substance was not broken and that the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized in this case. The non- presentation as witnesses of other persons such as SPO1 Grafia, the evidence custodian, and PO3 Alamia, the officer on duty, is not a crucial point against the prosecution. The matter of presentation of witnesses by the prosecution is not for the court to decide. The prosecution has the discretion as to how to present its case and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses.[35]
	GR No. 186530 2011-12-14	PEOPLE v. NELLY ULAMA Y ARRISMA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Likewise, we have also ruled that "[t]he prosecution has the discretion as to how to present its case and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses."[20] Thus, appellant's argument that the prosecution's failure to present the chief investigator in court is fatal to its case cannot prosper.
	GR No. 186131 2011-12-14	PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN AMANSEC Y DOÑA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Furthermore, there is nothing in Republic Act No. 9165 or in its implementing rules, which requires each and everyone who came into contact with the seized drugs to testify in court. "As long as the chain of custody of the seized drug was clearly established to have not been broken and the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized, it is not indispensable that each and every person who came into possession of the drugs should take the witness stand."[48] This Court, in People v. Hernandez,[49] citing People v. Zeng Hua Dian,[50] ruled: After a thorough review of the records of this case we find that the chain of custody of the seized substance was not broken and that the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized in this case. The non-presentation as witnesses of other persons such as SPO1 Grafia, the evidence custodian, and PO3 Alamia, the officer on duty, is not a crucial point against the prosecution. The matter of presentation of witnesses by the prosecution is not for the court to decide. The prosecution has the discretion as to how to present its case and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses.[51]
	GR No. 174097 2010-07-21	PEOPLE v. SONNY PADUA Y REYES LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The fact that the persons who had possession or custody of the subject drugs, such as Forensic Chemist Rivera-Dagasdas and the alleged investigator, were not presented as witnesses to corroborate SPO2 Aguilar's testimony is of no moment. The non-presentation as witnesses of other persons such as the investigator and the forensic chemist, is not a crucial point against the prosecution. The matter of presentation of witnesses by the prosecution is not for the court to decide. The prosecution has the discretion as to how to present its case and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses.[24]
	GR No. 188900 2010-03-05	PEOPLE v. FERNANDO HABANA Y ORANTE ABAD, J.
But no rule requires the prosecution to present as witness in a drugs case every person who had something to do with the arrest of the accused and the seizure of prohibited drugs from him. The discretion on which witness to present in every case belongs to the prosecutor.[21]
	GR No. 186418 2009-10-16	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO LAZARO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Further, not all people who came into contact with the seized drugs are required to testify in court. There is nothing in Republic Act No. 9165 or in any rule implementing the same that imposes such a requirement. As long as the chain of custody of the seized drug was clearly established not to have been broken and that the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized, it is not indispensable that each and every person who came into possession of the drugs should take the witness stand.[54] In People v. Zeng Hua Dian,[55] we ruled: After a thorough review of the records of this case, we find that the chain of custody of the seized substance was not broken and that the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized in this case. The non-presentation as witnesses of other persons such as SPO1 Grafia, the evidence custodian, and PO3 Alamia, the officer on duty, is not a crucial point against the prosecution. The matter of presentation of witnesses by the prosecution is not for the court to decide. The prosecution has the discretion as to how to present its case and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses.
	GR No. 184804 2009-06-18	PEOPLE v. RASHAMIA HERNANDEZ Y SANTOS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The fact that Inspector Tiu was not presented as a witness to corroborate PO2 Dimacali's testimony does not warrant appellants' acquittal of the crime charged. Not all people who came into contact with the seized drugs are required to testify in court. There is nothing in Republic Act No. 9165 or in any rule implementing the same that imposes such a requirement. As long as the chain of custody of the seized drug was clearly established to have not been broken and the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized, it is not indispensable that each and every person who came into possession of the drugs should take the witness stand. In People v. Zeng Hua Dian,[48] we ruled:After a thorough review of the records of this case we find that the chain of custody of the seized substance was not broken and that the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized in this case. The non-presentation as witnesses of other persons such as SPO1 Grafia, the evidence custodian, and PO3 Alamia, the officer on duty, is not a crucial point against the prosecution. The matter of presentation of witnesses by the prosecution is not for the court to decide. The prosecution has the discretion as to how to present its case and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses.
	GR No. 182347 2008-10-17	PEOPLE v. EMILIO RIVERA Y CABLANG CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The non-presentation as witnesses of other persons such as the other police officers forming a buy-bust team is not a crucial point against the prosecution[28] since the matter of presentation of witnesses by the prosecution is not for the court to decide. It is the prosecution which has the discretion as to how to present its case and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses.[29] Moreover, the testimony of a single prosecution witness, if credible and positive and satisfies the court as to the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt,[30] is enough to sustain a conviction.
	GR NO. 175593 2007-10-17	PEOPLE v. SALVADOR SANTOS TINGA, J.
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified.[28] What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the dangerous drug. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummates the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused.[29]
	GR NO. 173051 2007-07-31	PEOPLE v. GERARDO ORTEZA TINGA, J.
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified. [27] 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.[28]

PEOPLE v. ZENG HUA DIAN