Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SUSAN SALES Y JIMENA v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 205764 2016-02-03	PEOPLE v. LEE QUIJANO ENAD PERALTA, J.
Moreover, since the corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases constitutes the dangerous drugs itself,[11] proof beyond reasonable doubt that the seized item is the veiy same object tested to be positive for dangerous drugs and presented in court as evidence is essential in every criminal prosecution under R.A. 9165. Because the existence of the dangerous drug is crucial to a judgment of conviction, it is indispensable that the identity of the prohibited drug be established with the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt to ensure that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[12] To this end, the prosecution must establish the unbroken chain of custody of the seized item. As held in People of the Philippines v. Edwin Dalawis y Hidalgo:[13]
	GR No. 202701 2014-09-10	PEOPLE v. EDILBERTO BALIBAY Y LABIS PEREZ, J.
The elements necessary for the prosecution of the illegal sale of drugs are as follows: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor.[9] The prosecution, to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, must present in evidence the corpus delicti of the case. The corpus delicti is the seized illegal drugs. This is to establish with unwavering exactitude that the seized illegal drugs from the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit.[10]
	GR No. 188707 2014-07-30	PEOPLE v. MANUELITA AMPATUAN Y GONZALES PEREZ, J.
The duty of the prosecution is not merely to present in evidence the seized illegal drugs. It is essential that the illegal drugs seized from the suspect is the very same substance offered in evidence in court as the identity of the drug must be established with the same unwavering exactitude as that required to make a finding of guilt.[7]
	GR No. 190177 2014-06-11	PEOPLE v. VIVIAN BULOTANO Y AMANTE PEREZ, J.
The duty of the prosecution is not merely to present in evidence the seized illegal drugs. It is essential that the illegal drugs seized from the suspect is the very same substance offered in evidence in court as the identity of the drug must be established with the same unwavering exactitude as that required to make a finding of guilt.[12]
	GR No. 176269 2013-11-13	PEOPLE v. KENNETH MONCEDA Y SY BRION, J.
In convicting an accused for drug-related offenses, it is essential that the identity of the drugs must be established with the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt.[48] In this case, we see no irregularity on the part of the buy-bust operatives as to break the required chain of custody which could warrant the acquittal of Lai.
	GR No. 198051 2012-12-10	PEOPLE v. WILLIAM DUMAPLIN Y CAHOY VILLARAMA, JR., J.
It is essential that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit and that the identity of said drug be established with the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt.[26] In the present case, the prosecution failed to show that the integrity of the confiscated drugs has been preserved, and therefore, appellant should be acquitted.
	GR No. 185717 2011-06-08	PEOPLE v. GARRY DE LA CRUZ Y DELA CRUZ VELASCO JR., J.
Putting in doubt the conduct of the buy-bust operation are the uncontroverted testimonies of Buencamino and Lepiten, which gave credence to accused-appellant's denial and frame-up theory. The Court is not unaware that, in some instances, law enforcers resort to the practice of planting evidence to extract information from or even to harass civilians.[27] This Court has been issuing cautionary warnings to trial courts to exercise extra vigilance in trying drug cases, lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses.[28]
	GR No. 186390 2009-10-02	PEOPLE v. ROSEMARIE R. SALONGA VELASCO JR., J.
To emphasize the importance of the corpus delicti in drug charges, we have held that it is essential that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit; and that the identity of said drug be established with the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt.[19] This requirement is found wanting in this case. With the buy-bust team's unwarranted non-compliance with the chain of custody procedure, we are unable to say with certainty that the identity of the seized drugs is intact and its evidentiary value undiminished. For this reason, we find that the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The weakness of accused-appellant's defense is no longer material as the prosecution was not able to overcome the presumption of innocence accused-appellant enjoys.