Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ELSIE BARBA Y BIAZON

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 200877 2014-11-12	PEOPLE v. CHARVE JOHN LAGAHIT PEREZ, J.
Time and again, this Court held that in every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like marijuana, the following essential elements must be duly established: (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.[18] Similarly, it is essential that the transaction or sale be proved to have actually taken place coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti, that is, the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged.[19]
	GR No. 187069 2010-10-20	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO MAGPAYO PEREZ, J.
While Section 21 (a)[30] of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9165 excuses non-compliance with the afore-quoted procedure, the same holds true only for as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers. Here, the failure of the buy-bust team to comply with the procedural requirements cannot be excused since there was a break in the chain of custody of the substance taken from appellant. It should be pointed out that the identity of the seized substance is established by showing its chain of custody.[31]
	GR No. 184761 2010-09-08	PEOPLE v. JULIUS GADIANA Y REPOLLO CARPIO MORALES, J.
Chain of custody establishes the identity of the subject substance.[17] It requires that testimony be presented about every link in the chain, from the moment the item is seized up to the time it is offered in evidence.[18] When nagging doubts persist on whether the item confiscated is the same specimen examined and established to be prohibited drug,[19] there can be no crime of illegal possession of a prohibited drug.
	GR No. 178202 2010-05-14	PEOPLE v. NORMAN SITCO VELASCO JR., J.
Although the non-presentation of some of the witnesses who can attest to an unbroken chain of custody of evidence may, in some instances, be excused, there should be a justifying factor for the prosecution to dispense with their testimonies.[27] In People v. Denoman,[28] the Court discussed the saving mechanism provided by Sec. 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165.[29] Denoman explains that the aforementioned provision contains a saving mechanism to ensure that not every case of non-compliance will permanently prejudice the prosecution's case. The saving mechanism applies when the prosecution recognizes and explains the lapse or lapses in the prescribed procedures.[30] In this case, the prosecution did not even acknowledge and discuss the reasons for the missing links in the chain.
	GR No. 186498 2010-03-26	PEOPLE v. RONALDO DE GUZMAN Y DANZIL NACHURA, J.
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.[25] The corpus delicti should be identified with unwavering exactitude.[26]