This case has been cited 19 times or more.
|
2016-01-11 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| "In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be duly established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place; and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence."[19] The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence beyond reasonable doubt plus the fact of its delivery and/or sale are both vital and essential to a judgment of conviction in a criminal case.[20] And more than just the fact of sale, "[o]f prime importance therefore x x x is that the identity of the dangerous drug be likewise established beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, it must be established with unwavering exactitude that the dangerous drug presented in court as evidence against the accused is the same as that seized from him in the first place. The chain of custody requirement performs this function in that in ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed."[21] | |||||
|
2014-11-19 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Finally, we stress that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty obtains only when there is no deviation from the regular performance of duty.[28] Where the official act in question is irregular on its face, no presumption of regularity can arise. Our declaration in People v. Samuel Obmiranis y Oreta[29] is particularly instructive:x x x The presumption, in other words, obtains only where nothing in the records is suggestive of the fact that the law enforcers involved deviated from the standard conduct of official duty as provided for in the law. Otherwise, where the official act in question is irregular on its face, an adverse presumption arises as a matter of course. There is indeed merit in the contention that where no ill motives to make false charges was successfully attributed to the members of the buy-bust team, the presumption prevails that said police operatives had regularly performed their duty, but the theory is correct only where there is no showing that the conduct of police duty was irregular. People v. Dulay and People v. Ganenas in fact both suggest that the presumption of regularity is disputed where there is deviation from the regular performance of duty. Suffice it to say at this point that the presumption of regularity in the conduct of police duty is merely just that - a mere presumption disputable by contrary proof and which when challenged by the evidence cannot be regarded as binding truth. | |||||
|
2013-08-28 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| We elucidated in People v. Obmiranis[41] that:Be that as it may, although testimony about a perfect chain does not always have to be the standard because it is almost always impossible to obtain, an unbroken chain of custody indeed becomes indispensable and essential when the item of real evidence is a narcotic substance. A unique characteristic of narcotic substances such as shabu is that they are not distinctive and are not readily identifiable as in fact they are subject to scientific analysis to determine their composition and nature. And because they cannot be readily and properly distinguished visually from other substances of the same physical and/or chemical nature, they are susceptible to alteration, tampering, contamination, substitution and exchange whether the alteration, tampering, contamination, substitution and exchange be inadvertent or otherwise not. It is by reason of this distinctive quality that the condition of the exhibit at the time of testing and trial is critical. Hence, in authenticating narcotic specimens, a standard more stringent than that applied to objects which are readily identifiable must be applied a more exacting standard that entails a chain of custody of the item with sufficient completeness if only to render it improbable that the original item has either been exchanged with another or contaminated or tampered with. (Citations omitted.) | |||||
|
2013-03-06 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The Court has to be sure stressed the need for the strict adherence to the custodial chain process and explained the reason behind the rules on the proper procedure in handling of specimen illegal drugs. People v. Obmiranis[38] readily comes to mind: The Court certainly cannot reluctantly close its eyes to the possibility of substitution, alteration or contamination whether intentional or unintentional of narcotic substances at any of the links in the chain of custody thereof especially because practically such possibility is great where the item of real evidence is small and is similar in form to other substances to which people are familiar in their daily lives. x x x | |||||
|
2012-09-05 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The Court consistently held 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.[39] In other words, it must be established with unwavering exactitude that the dangerous drug presented in court as evidence against the accused is the same as that seized from him in the first place.[40] The chain of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[41] | |||||
|
2011-02-14 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| "In criminal prosecutions, fundamental is the requirement that the elemental acts constituting the offense be established with moral certainty as this is the critical and only requisite to a finding of guilt."[23] In this case, contrary to the conclusion of the trial court as affirmed by the appellate court, the prosecution failed to prove that the controversial phrase "CADIZ FOREVER, BADING AND SAGAY NEVER" imputes derogatory remarks on private respondent's character, reputation and integrity. In this light, any discussion on the issue of malice is rendered moot. | |||||
|
2011-01-10 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| As a result of the irregularities and lapses in the chain of custody requirement which unfortunately the trial and appellate courts overlooked, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties cannot be used against appellant. It needs no elucidation that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty must be seen in the context of an existing rule of law or statute authorizing the performance of an act or duty or prescribing a procedure in the performance thereof. The presumption, in other words, obtains only where nothing in the records is suggestive of the fact that the law enforcers involved deviated from the standard conduct of official duty as provided for in the law. Otherwise, where the official act in question is irregular on its face, an adverse presumption arises as a matter of course.[33] | |||||
|
2010-12-15 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The argument fails to convince. There is a presumption of regular performance of official duty only when there is nothing on record that would arouse suspicions of irregularity.[41] The refusal of the Bureau of Lands and DAR officials to affirm their written findings in open court indicates that the presumption should not apply in the evaluation of these reports. | |||||
|
2010-12-13 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| It may be true that where no ill motive can be attributed to the police officers, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty should prevail. However, such presumption obtains only when there is no deviation from the regular performance of duty.[67] Where the official act in question is irregular on its face, the presumption of regularity cannot stand. | |||||
|
2010-03-19 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Likewise, in People v. Obmiranis,[69] we acquitted the appellant due to flaws in the conduct of the post-seizure custody of the dangerous drug allegedly recovered from the appellant, together with the failure of the key persons who handled the same to testify on the whereabouts of the exhibit before it was offered in evidence in court. | |||||
|
2010-02-26 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Under the circumstances, reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties is not enough for a conviction. Once challenged by evidence of flawed chain of custody, as in this case, the presumption of regularity cannot prevail over the presumption of innocence.[17] Likewise, while the defense of denial on its own is inherently weak, the conviction of an accused must rely on the strength of the prosecution's evidence and not on the weakness of his defense.[18] | |||||
|
2010-01-22 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Jurisprudence holds that in prosecution of cases involving illegal possession of prohibited drugs, the prosecution must establish with moral certainty the elemental act of possession of a prohibited substance coupled with the fact that such possession is not authorized by law. Essential, however, in a drug-related case is that the identity of the dangerous drug be established beyond reasonable doubt.[22] Since the dangerous drug constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction,[23] it behooves upon the prosecution to establish and prove with certainty that the dangerous drug presented in court as evidence against the accused is the same item recovered from his possession. | |||||
|
2010-01-19 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Given the flagrant procedural lapses the police committed in handling the seized shabu and the obvious evidentiary gaps in the chain of its custody, a presumption of regularity in the performance of duties cannot be made in this case. A presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty is made in the context of an existing rule of law or statute authorizing the performance of an act or duty or prescribing a procedure in the performance thereof. The presumption applies when nothing in the record suggests that the law enforcers deviated from the standard conduct of official duty required by law; where the official act is irregular on its face, the presumption cannot arise.[45] In light of the flagrant lapses we noted, the lower courts were obviously wrong when they relied on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. | |||||
|
2009-09-03 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| It needs no elucidation that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty must be seen in the context of an existing rule of law or statute authorizing the performance of an act or duty or prescribing a procedure in the performance thereof. The presumption, in other words, obtains only where nothing on record suggests that the law enforcers involved deviated from the standard conduct of official duty as provided for in the law. Otherwise, where the official act in question is irregular on its face, an adverse presumption arises as a matter of course.[26] | |||||
|
2009-05-08 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| In People v. Obmiranis,[20] appellant was acquitted due to the flaws in the conduct of the post-seizure custody of the dangerous drug allegedly recovered from appellant, taken together with the failure of the key persons who handled the same to testify on the whereabouts of the exhibit before it was offered in evidence in court.[21] In Bondad v. People,[22] this Court held that the failure to comply with the requirements of the law compromised the identity of the items seized, which is the corpus delicti of each of the crimes charged against appellant, hence his acquittal is in order.[23] And in People v. De la Cruz,[24] the apprehending team's omission to observe the procedure outlined by R.A. No. 9165 in the custody and disposition of the seized drugs significantly impairs the prosecution's case.[25] | |||||
|
2009-05-08 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| We begin with the precept that in criminal prosecutions, fundamental is the requirement that the elemental acts constituting the offense be established with moral certainty as this is the critical and only requisite to a finding of guilt. In prosecutions involving narcotics, the narcotic substance itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[31] Of prime importance therefore in these cases is that the identity of the dangerous drug be likewise established beyond reasonable doubt.[32] In other words, it must be established with unwavering exactitude that the dangerous drug presented in court as evidence against the accused is the same as that seized from him in the first place. The chain of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[33] | |||||
|
2009-05-08 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| We begin with the precept that in criminal prosecutions, fundamental is the requirement that the elemental acts constituting the offense be established with moral certainty as this is the critical and only requisite to a finding of guilt. In prosecutions involving narcotics, the narcotic substance itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[31] Of prime importance therefore in these cases is that the identity of the dangerous drug be likewise established beyond reasonable doubt.[32] In other words, it must be established with unwavering exactitude that the dangerous drug presented in court as evidence against the accused is the same as that seized from him in the first place. The chain of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[33] | |||||
|
2009-05-08 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be.[34] It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.[35] Indeed, it is from the testimony of every witness who handled the evidence from which a reliable assurance can be derived that the evidence presented in court is one and the same as that seized from the accused.[36] | |||||
|
2009-03-13 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| We take this occasion to reiterate, albeit not needlessly, that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty must be seen in the context of an existing rule of law or statute authorizing the performance of an act or duty or prescribing a procedure in the performance thereof. The presumption, in other words, obtains only where nothing in the records is suggestive of the fact that the law enforcers involved deviated from the standard conduct of official duty as provided for in the law.[54] But where the official act in question is irregular on its face, an adverse presumption arises as a matter of course.[55] | |||||