This case has been cited 24 times or more.
|
2014-03-05 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Moreover, we have time and again recognized that a buy-bust operation resulting from the tip of an anonymous confidential informant, although an effective means of eliminating illegal drug related activities, is "susceptible to police abuse." Worse, it is usually used as a means for extortion.[17] It is for this reason, that the Court must ensure that the enactment of R.A. No. 9165 providing specific procedures to counter these abuses is not put to naught.[18] | |||||
|
2014-01-15 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| In People v. Morales,[32] we acquitted the accused due to the failure of the buy-bust team to photograph and inventory the seized items or to give justifiable grounds for their non-observance of the required procedures. In People v. Garcia,[33] the accused was acquitted because "no physical inventory was ever made, and no photograph of the seized items was taken under the circumstances required by R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rules."[34] We issued the same ruling in Bondad, Jr. v. People,[35] where the police without justifiable grounds did not inventory or photograph the seized items. We reiterated the same ruling in People v. Gutierrez,[36] People v. Denoman,[37] People v. Partoza,[38] People v. Robles,[39] and People v. dela Cruz.[40] In all these cases, we stressed the importance of complying with the required mandatory procedures in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 concerning the preservation of the chain of custody of confiscated drugs in a buy-bust operation. | |||||
|
2013-11-13 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The existence of the drug is the corpus delicti of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs and is an essential element to secure a conviction. It is on this point that all doubts on the identity of the evidence should be removed through the monitoring and tracking of the movement of the seized drugs from the accused, to the police, to the forensic chemist, and finally to the court.[39] | |||||
|
2013-10-09 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The saving clause in Section 21, IRR of R.A. No. 9165 fails to remedy the lapses and save the prosecution's case. We have emphasized in People v. Garcia[54] that the saving clause applies only where the prosecution recognized the procedural lapses, and thereafter cited justifiable grounds.[55] Failure to follow the procedure mandated under R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR must be adequately explained.[56] Equally important, the prosecution must establish that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized item are properly preserved. The prosecution failed in this regard. Taking into account the several rules and requirements that were not followed by the law enforcers, there was an evident disregard on their part of the established legal requirements. Their breach of the chain of custody rule, magnified by the prosecution's failure to explain the deficiencies during the trial, casts doubt on whether the item claimed to have been sold by Guzon to the police asset was the same item that was brought for examination by the police crime laboratory and eventually presented in court as evidence. | |||||
|
2013-06-13 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| However, as we have observed in People v. Garcia,[30] while this kind of operation has been proven to be an effective way to flush out illegal transactions that are otherwise conducted covertly and in secrecy, it has a significant downside that has not escaped the attention of the framers of the law. It is susceptible to police abuse, the most notorious of which is its use as a tool for extortion. Thus, in People v. Tan,[31] courts have been exhorted to be extra vigilant in trying drug cases, lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses. | |||||
|
2012-06-13 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| The disposition of this case reminds us of our observation in People v. Garcia, in which we took note of the statistics relating to dismissal and acquittal in dangerous drugs cases. There we mentioned that "[u]nder PDEA records, the dismissals and acquittals accounted for 56% because of the failure of the police authorities to observe proper procedure under the law, among others."[13] We then noted an international study conducted in 2008, which showed that "out of 13,667 drug cases filed from 2003 to 2007, only 4,790 led to convictions (most of which were cases of simple possession); the charges against the rest were dismissed or the accused were acquitted."[14] Our own data[15] on the cases filed with us from 2006 to 2011 show that, out of those in which this Court made acquittals and reversals, 85% involved failure of the prosecution to establish the arresting officers' compliance with the procedural requirements outlined in Section 21 of R.A. 9165. | |||||
|
2012-04-25 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| A buy-bust operation gave rise to the present case. While this kind of operation has been proven to be an effective way to flush out illegal transactions that are otherwise conducted covertly and in secrecy, a buy-bust operation has a significant downside that has not escaped the attention of the framers of the law. It is susceptible to police abuse, the most notorious of which is its use as a tool for extortion. In People v. Tan, this Court itself recognized that "by the very nature of anti-narcotics operations, the need for entrapment procedures, the use of shady characters as informants, the ease with which sticks of marijuana or grams of heroin can be planted in pockets of or hands of unsuspecting provincial hicks, and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals, the possibility of abuse is great. Thus, courts have been exhorted to be extra vigilant in trying drug cases lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses." Accordingly, specific procedures relating to the seizure and custody of drugs have been laid down in the law (R.A. No. 9165) for the police to strictly follow. The prosecution must adduce evidence that these procedures have been followed in proving the elements of the defined offense.[8] (Emphasis supplied and citations omitted.) | |||||
|
2012-04-18 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The buy-bust operation mounted against petitioner resulted from the tip of an unnamed lady confidential informant. Such an operation, according to People v. Garcia,[33] was "susceptible to police abuse, the most notorious of which is its use as a tool for extortion," and the possibility of that abuse was great.[34] The susceptibility to abuse of the operation led to the institution of several procedural safeguards by R.A. No. 9165, mainly to guide the law enforcers. Thus, the State must show a faithful compliance with such safeguards during the prosecution of every drug-related offense.[35] | |||||
|
2011-04-06 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In People v. Garcia,[26] the Court enumerated several cases dealing with the legal repercussions of failing to comply with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, thus: In People v. Orteza, the Court, in discussing the implications of the failure to comply with Paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, declared: | |||||
|
2011-01-19 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The Court remained vigilant in ensuring that the prescribed procedures in the handling of the seized drugs were observed after the passage of R.A. No. 9165. In People v. Lorenzo,[34] we acquitted the accused for failure of the buy-bust team to photograph and inventory the seized items. People v. Garcia[35] likewise resulted in an acquittal because no physical inventory was ever made, and no photograph of the seized items was taken under the circumstances required by R.A. No. 9165. In Bondad, Jr. v. People,[36] we also acquitted the accused for the failure of the police to conduct an inventory and to photograph the seized item, without justifiable grounds. | |||||
|
2010-09-08 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Non-compliance with the above-quoted requirements does not of course necessarily render void and invalid the seizure of the dangerous drugs, provided that there are justifiable grounds to warrant exception therefrom.[21] The prosecution must, therefore, explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses[22] and must show that the integrity and value of the seized evidence had been preserved.[23] | |||||
|
2010-08-09 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In a prosecution for illegal sale of a prohibited drug under Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. All these require evidence that the sale transaction transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti, i.e., the body or substance of the crime that establishes that a crime has actually been committed, as shown by presenting the object of the illegal transaction.[26] To remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the appellant; otherwise, the prosecution for possession or for drug pushing under R.A. No. 9165 fails.[27] | |||||
|
2010-05-14 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In prosecutions involving narcotics and other illegal substances, the substance itself constitutes part of the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[20] Of chief concern in drug cases then is the requirement that the prosecution prove that what was seized by police officers is the same item presented in court. This identification, as we have held in the past, must be established with moral certainty[21] and is a function of the rule on chain of custody. The chain of custody requirement is essential to ensure that doubts regarding the identity of the evidence are removed through the monitoring and tracking of the movements of the seized drugs from the accused, to the police, to the forensic chemist, and finally to the court.[22] | |||||
|
2010-04-23 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In People v. Ruiz,[14] this Court acquitted accused due to the failure of the prosecution to comply with the procedures under Republic Act No. 9165 and its IRR as no physical inventory was ever made, and no photograph of the seized items was taken under the circumstances required. | |||||
|
2010-03-29 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| For the saving clause to apply, it is important that the prosecution should explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses[15] and that the integrity and value of the seized evidence had been preserved: x x x [N]on-compliance with the strict directive of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution's case; police procedures in the handling of confiscated evidence may still have lapses, as in the present case. These lapses, however, must be recognized and explained in terms of their justifiable grounds and the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized must be shown to have been preserved. [16] (italics in the original) | |||||
|
2009-09-29 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| All told, the identity of the corpus delicti in this case was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The courts below heavily relied on the testimony of PO2 Atienza and, in the same way, banked on the presumption of regularity. It bears stressing that this presumption only arises in the absence of contradicting details that would raise doubts on the regularity in the performance of official duties. Where, as in this case, the police officers failed to comply with the standard procedure prescribed by law, there is no occasion to apply the presumption.[24] | |||||
|
2009-08-14 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In drug-related prosecutions, the State not only bears the burden of proving the elements of the offenses of sale and possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride under RA 9165,[5] but also carries the obligation to prove the corpus delicti, the body of the crime,[6] to discharge its overall duty of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.[7] The prosecution fails to comply with the indispensable requirement of proving corpus delicti not only when it is missing[8] but also when there are substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the seized drugs which raise doubts on the authenticity of the evidence presented in court.[9] | |||||
|
2009-08-14 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of RA No. 9165 and Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA No. 9165 give us the procedures that the apprehending team should observe in the handling of seized illegal drugs in order to preserve their identity and integrity as evidence. As indicated by their mandatory terms, strict compliance with the prescribed procedure is essential and the prosecution must show compliance in every case.[27] Parenthetically, in People v. De la Cruz,[28] we justified the need for strict compliance with the prescribed procedures to be consistent with the principle that penal laws shall be construed strictly against the government and liberally in favor of the accused. | |||||
|
2009-08-14 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| People v. Garcia[32] resulted in an acquittal because the buy-bust team failed to immediately mark the seized items at the place of seizure and failed to explain the discrepancies in the markings in the seized items. The underlying reason for the acquittal, of course, was the doubts raised on whether the seized items are the exact same items that were taken from the accused-appellant when he was arrested; the prosecution failed to satisfactorily establish the corpus delicti - a material element of the crime. | |||||
|
2009-07-23 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In People v. Garcia,[22] the conviction was overturned due in part to the failure of the state to show who delivered the drugs to the forensic laboratory and who had custody of them after their examination by the forensic chemist and pending their presentation in court. | |||||
|
2009-05-08 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The courts below heavily relied on the testimony of PO3 Tougan and in the same breadth, banked on the presumption of regularity. In People v. Garcia,[28] we said that the presumption only arises in the absence of contrary details in the case that raise doubt on the regularity in the performance of official duties. Where, as in the present case, the police officers failed to comply with the standard procedures prescribed by law, there is no occasion to apply the presumption.[29] | |||||
|
2009-05-08 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| In Mallillin v. People,[40] People v. Obmiranis[41] and People v. Garcia[42] and Carino v. People[43] we declared that the failure of the prosecution to offer the testimony of key witnesses to establish a sufficiently complete chain of custody of a specimen of shabu, and the irregularity which characterized the handling of the evidence before the same was finally offered in court, fatally conflict with every proposition relative to the culpability of the accused. It is this same reason that now moves us to reverse the judgment of conviction in the present case. | |||||
|
2009-03-13 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| In Mallillin v. People,[56] People v. Obmiranis[57] and People v. Garcia,[58] we declared that the failure of the prosecution to offer the testimony of key witnesses to establish a sufficiently complete chain of custody of a specimen of shabu, and the irregularity which characterized the handling of the evidence before the same was finally offered in court, fatally conflict with every proposition relative to the culpability of the accused. It is this same reason that now moves us to reverse the judgment of conviction in the present case. | |||||