Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. MONALYN CERVANTES Y SOLAR

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 197550 2013-09-25	PEOPLE v. ARTURO ENRIQUEZ Y DE LOS REYES LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Describing the mechanics of the custodial chain requirement, this Court, in People v. Cervantes,[36] said:As a mode 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. In context, this would ideally include testimony about every link in the chain, from the seizure of the prohibited drug up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that everyone 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. x x x. (Citation omitted.)
	GR No. 201845 2013-03-06	PEOPLE v. EDGARDO ADRID Y FLORES VELASCO JR., J.
In every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165, the following elements must concur: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it.[35] As it were, the dangerous drug itself forms an integral and key part of the corpus delicti of the offense of possession or sale of prohibited drugs. Withal, it is essential in the prosecution of drug cases that the identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond reasonable doubt. This means that on top of the elements of possession or illegal sale, the fact that the substance illegally sold or possessed is, in the first instance, the very substance adduced in court must likewise be established with the same exacting degree of certitude as that required sustaining a conviction. The chain of custody requirement, as stressed in People v. Cervantes,[36] and other cases, performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts respecting the identity of the evidence are minimized if not altogether removed. People v. Cervantes describes the mechanics of the custodial chain requirement, thusly: As a mode 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. In context, this would ideally include testimony about every link in the chain, from the seizure of the prohibited drug up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that everyone 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 it was delivered to the next link in the chain.[37] x x x
	GR No. 194945 2012-07-30	PEOPLE v. ALEX WATAMAMA Y ESIL VILLARAMA, JR., J.
received, where it was and what happened to it while m 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.[13]
	GR No. 188319 2011-06-08	PEOPLE v. MADS SALUDIN MANTAWIL VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In People v. Cervantes, [34] we explained: In every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drug, what is crucial is the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and its consideration, the delivery of the thing sold, and the payment for it. Implicit in these cases is first and foremost the identity and existence, coupled with the presentation to the court of the traded prohibited substance, this object evidence being an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime of possession or selling of regulated/prohibited drug. There can be no such crime when nagging doubts persist on whether the specimen submitted for examination and presented in court was what was recovered from, or sold by, the accused. Essential, therefore, in appropriate cases is that the identity of the prohibited drug be established with moral certainty. x x x [35]
	GR No. 191366 2010-12-13	PEOPLE v. ARNOLD MARTINEZ Y ANGELES MENDOZA, J.
Fifth, P/Insp. Maranion appears to be the last person in the chain of custody. No witness testified on how the subject items were kept after they were tested prior to their presentation in court. This Court has highlighted similar shortcomings in People v. Cervantes,[58] People v. Garcia,[59] People v. Sanchez,[60] and Malillin v. People.[61]
	GR No. 191366 2010-12-13	PEOPLE v. ARNOLD MARTINEZ Y ANGELES MENDOZA, J.
This Court once again takes note of the growing number of acquittals for dangerous drugs cases due to the failure of law enforcers to observe the proper arrest, search and seizure procedure under the law.[69] Some bona fide arrests and seizures in dangerous drugs cases result in the acquittal of the accused because drug enforcement operatives compromise the integrity and evidentiary worth of the seized items. It behooves this Court to remind law enforcement agencies to exert greater effort to apply the rules and procedures governing the custody, control, and handling of seized drugs.
	GR No. 178202 2010-05-14	PEOPLE v. NORMAN SITCO 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]
	GR No. 185379 2009-11-27	PEOPLE v. VS.ZENAIDA QUEBRAL Y MATEO ABAD, J.
The accused-appellants also point out that, since the chemist who examined the seized substance did not testify in court, the prosecution was unable to establish the indispensable element of corpus delicti.But this claim is unmeritorious.This Court has held that the non-presentation of the forensic chemist in illegal drug cases is an insufficient cause for acquittal.[14]The corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases constitutes the dangerous drug itself. This means that proof beyond doubt of the identity of the prohibited drug is essential.[15]
	GR No. 182420 2009-07-23	PEOPLE v. ELSIE BARBA Y BIAZON VELASCO JR., J.
To reiterate, the essential elements in a prosecution for sale of illegal drugs are: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it.[14] The prohibited drug is an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime of possession or selling of regulated/prohibited drug; proof of its identity, existence, and presentation in court are crucial.[15] A conviction cannot be sustained if there is a persistent doubt on the identity of the drug. The identity of the prohibited drug must be established with moral certainty. Apart from showing that the elements of possession or sale are present, the fact that the substance illegally possessed and sold in the first place is the same substance offered in court as exhibit must likewise be established with the same degree of certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty verdict.[16]