Lawyerly

GR No. 203028

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.

GR No. 194382

2013-06-10

PEOPLE PHILIPPINES v. GLORIA CALUMBRES Y AUDITOR

PEREZ, J.

We reiterate that this Court will never waver in ensuring that the prescribed procedures in the handling of the seized drugs should be observed. In People v. Salonga,[9] we acquitted the accused for the failure of the police to inventory and photograph the confiscated items. We also reversed a conviction in People v. Gutierrez,[10] for the failure of the buy-bust team to inventory and photograph the seized items without justifiable grounds. People v. Cantalejo[11] also resulted in an acquittal because no inventory or photograph was ever made by the police.

GR No. 198051

2012-12-10

PEOPLE v. WILLIAM DUMAPLIN Y CAHOY

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

The prosecution must prove the requisite chain of custody of the seized specimen. "Chain of custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.[24] The prosecution must offer the testimony of key witnesses to establish a sufficiently complete chain of custody.[25] In this case, the trial court and the RTC concluded that the chain of custody of the confiscated shabu specimen was unbroken. However, the records belie such conclusion as it was not satisfactorily explained how the drugs were handled from the time the police officers allegedly seized them from appellant to the time they were presented in court as evidence.

GR No. 189277

2012-12-05

PEOPLE v. RICARDO REMIGIO Y ZAPANTA

PEREZ, J.

Thus, there are two indispensables. The illegal drug must be offered before the court as exhibit and that which is exhibited must be the very same substance recovered from the suspect. The needfulness of both was stressed in People v. Lorena,[66] where We, after reiterating the elements of the crime of sale of illegal drug, proceeded to state that 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, which in People v. Martinez,[67] equates as simply in People v. Gutierrez,[68] was referred to as "the drug itself."

GR No. 185460

2012-07-25

EDWIN FAJARDO

PEREZ, J.

In prosecutions involving narcotics, the narcotic substance itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt demands that unwavering exactitude be observed in establishing the corpus delicti. The chain of custody rule performs this function as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[18] The rule seeks to settle definitively whether the object evidence subjected to laboratory examination and presented in court is the same object allegedly seized from appellant.[19]

GR No. 190749

2012-04-25

VALENTIN ZAFRA Y DECHOSA v. PEOPLE

PEREZ, J.

We reiterate, that this Court will never waver in ensuring that the prescribed procedures in the handling of the seized drugs should be observed. In People v. Salonga,[41] we acquitted the accused for the failure of the police to inventory and photograph the confiscated items. We also reversed a conviction in People v. Gutierrez,[42] for the failure of the buy-bust team to inventory and photograph the seized items without justifiable grounds. People v. Cantalejo[43] also resulted in an acquittal because no inventory or photograph was ever made by the police.

GR No. 179344

2011-08-03

PEOPLE v. EDGARDO FERMIN Y GREGORIO

PEREZ, J.

In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) that the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified.[30] The presence of these elements is sufficient to support the trial court's finding of appellants' guilt.[31] What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused.[32] The presentation in court of the corpus delicti -- the body or substance of the crime - establishes the fact that a crime has actually been committed.[33]

GR No. 183676

2011-06-22

RUEL AMPATUAN 'ALIAS RUEL v. PEOPLE

PEREZ, J.

In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) that the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified. [19] The presence of these elements is sufficient to support the trial court's finding of appellants' guilt. [20] What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused. [21] The presentation in court of the corpus delicti -- the body or substance of the crime - establishes the fact that a crime has actually been committed. [22]

GR No. 185717

2011-06-08

PEOPLE v. GARRY DE LA CRUZ Y DELA CRUZ

VELASCO JR., J.

Moreover, the prosecution failed to sufficiently prove the requisite chain of custody of the seized specimen. "Chain of custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.[36] The CA found an unbroken chain of custody of the purportedly confiscated shabu specimen. However, the records belie such conclusion.

GR No. 185715

2011-01-19

PEOPLE v. ERLINDA CAPUNO Y TISON

BRION, J.

We had the same rulings in People v. Gutierrez,[37] People v. Denoman,[38] People v. Partoza,[39] People v. Robles,[40] and People v. dela Cruz,[41] where we emphasized the importance of complying with the required procedures under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.

GR No. 179029

2010-08-09

PEOPLE v. FELIMON PAGADUAN Y TAMAYO

BRION, J.

We had the same rulings in People v. Gutierrez,[34] People v. Denoman,[35] People v. Partoza,[36] People v. Robles,[37] and People v. dela Cruz,[38] where we emphasized the importance of complying with the required mandatory procedures under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.

GR No. 188570

2010-07-06

PEOPLE v. CHRISTOPHER DE MESA

NACHURA, J.

In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) that the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified.[15] The presence of these elements is sufficient to support the trial court's finding of appellants' guilt.[16] What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused.[17] The presentation in court of the corpus delicti -- the body or substance of the crime - establishes the fact that a crime has actually been committed.[18]

GR No. 178202

2010-05-14

PEOPLE v. NORMAN SITCO

VELASCO JR., J.

The Court reiterates that, on account of the built-in danger of abuse that it carries, a buy-bust operation is governed by specific procedures on the seizure and custody of drugs, separately from the general law procedures geared to ensure that the rights of persons under criminal investigation and of the accused facing a criminal charge are safeguarded.[25] To reiterate, the chain of custody requirement is necessary in order to remove doubts as to the identity of the evidence, by monitoring and tracking custody of the seized drugs from the accused, until they reach the court. We find that the procedure and statutory safeguards prescribed for compliance by drug enforcement agencies have not been followed in this case. A failure to comply with the aforequoted Sec. 21(1) of RA 9165 implies a concomitant failure on the part of the prosecution to establish the identity of the seized illegal items as part of the corpus delicti.[26]

	GR No. 203028 2014-01-15	PEOPLE v. JOSELITO BERAN Y ZAPANTA 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.
	GR No. 194382 2013-06-10	PEOPLE PHILIPPINES v. GLORIA CALUMBRES Y AUDITOR PEREZ, J.
We reiterate that this Court will never waver in ensuring that the prescribed procedures in the handling of the seized drugs should be observed. In People v. Salonga,[9] we acquitted the accused for the failure of the police to inventory and photograph the confiscated items. We also reversed a conviction in People v. Gutierrez,[10] for the failure of the buy-bust team to inventory and photograph the seized items without justifiable grounds. People v. Cantalejo[11] also resulted in an acquittal because no inventory or photograph was ever made by the police.
	GR No. 198051 2012-12-10	PEOPLE v. WILLIAM DUMAPLIN Y CAHOY VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The prosecution must prove the requisite chain of custody of the seized specimen. "Chain of custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.[24] The prosecution must offer the testimony of key witnesses to establish a sufficiently complete chain of custody.[25] In this case, the trial court and the RTC concluded that the chain of custody of the confiscated shabu specimen was unbroken. However, the records belie such conclusion as it was not satisfactorily explained how the drugs were handled from the time the police officers allegedly seized them from appellant to the time they were presented in court as evidence.
	GR No. 189277 2012-12-05	PEOPLE v. RICARDO REMIGIO Y ZAPANTA PEREZ, J.
Thus, there are two indispensables. The illegal drug must be offered before the court as exhibit and that which is exhibited must be the very same substance recovered from the suspect. The needfulness of both was stressed in People v. Lorena,[66] where We, after reiterating the elements of the crime of sale of illegal drug, proceeded to state that 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, which in People v. Martinez,[67] equates as simply in People v. Gutierrez,[68] was referred to as "the drug itself."
	GR No. 185460 2012-07-25	EDWIN FAJARDO PEREZ, J.
In prosecutions involving narcotics, the narcotic substance itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt demands that unwavering exactitude be observed in establishing the corpus delicti. The chain of custody rule performs this function as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[18] The rule seeks to settle definitively whether the object evidence subjected to laboratory examination and presented in court is the same object allegedly seized from appellant.[19]
	GR No. 190749 2012-04-25	VALENTIN ZAFRA Y DECHOSA v. PEOPLE PEREZ, J.
We reiterate, that this Court will never waver in ensuring that the prescribed procedures in the handling of the seized drugs should be observed. In People v. Salonga,[41] we acquitted the accused for the failure of the police to inventory and photograph the confiscated items. We also reversed a conviction in People v. Gutierrez,[42] for the failure of the buy-bust team to inventory and photograph the seized items without justifiable grounds. People v. Cantalejo[43] also resulted in an acquittal because no inventory or photograph was ever made by the police.
	GR No. 179344 2011-08-03	PEOPLE v. EDGARDO FERMIN Y GREGORIO PEREZ, J.
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) that the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified.[30] The presence of these elements is sufficient to support the trial court's finding of appellants' guilt.[31] What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused.[32] The presentation in court of the corpus delicti -- the body or substance of the crime - establishes the fact that a crime has actually been committed.[33]
	GR No. 183676 2011-06-22	RUEL AMPATUAN 'ALIAS RUEL v. PEOPLE PEREZ, J.
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) that the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified. [19] The presence of these elements is sufficient to support the trial court's finding of appellants' guilt. [20] What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused. [21] The presentation in court of the corpus delicti -- the body or substance of the crime - establishes the fact that a crime has actually been committed. [22]
	GR No. 185717 2011-06-08	PEOPLE v. GARRY DE LA CRUZ Y DELA CRUZ VELASCO JR., J.
Moreover, the prosecution failed to sufficiently prove the requisite chain of custody of the seized specimen. "Chain of custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.[36] The CA found an unbroken chain of custody of the purportedly confiscated shabu specimen. However, the records belie such conclusion.
	GR No. 185715 2011-01-19	PEOPLE v. ERLINDA CAPUNO Y TISON BRION, J.
We had the same rulings in People v. Gutierrez,[37] People v. Denoman,[38] People v. Partoza,[39] People v. Robles,[40] and People v. dela Cruz,[41] where we emphasized the importance of complying with the required procedures under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.
	GR No. 179029 2010-08-09	PEOPLE v. FELIMON PAGADUAN Y TAMAYO BRION, J.
We had the same rulings in People v. Gutierrez,[34] People v. Denoman,[35] People v. Partoza,[36] People v. Robles,[37] and People v. dela Cruz,[38] where we emphasized the importance of complying with the required mandatory procedures under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.
	GR No. 188570 2010-07-06	PEOPLE v. CHRISTOPHER DE MESA NACHURA, J.
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) that the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified.[15] The presence of these elements is sufficient to support the trial court's finding of appellants' guilt.[16] What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused.[17] The presentation in court of the corpus delicti -- the body or substance of the crime - establishes the fact that a crime has actually been committed.[18]
	GR No. 178202 2010-05-14	PEOPLE v. NORMAN SITCO VELASCO JR., J.
The Court reiterates that, on account of the built-in danger of abuse that it carries, a buy-bust operation is governed by specific procedures on the seizure and custody of drugs, separately from the general law procedures geared to ensure that the rights of persons under criminal investigation and of the accused facing a criminal charge are safeguarded.[25] To reiterate, the chain of custody requirement is necessary in order to remove doubts as to the identity of the evidence, by monitoring and tracking custody of the seized drugs from the accused, until they reach the court. We find that the procedure and statutory safeguards prescribed for compliance by drug enforcement agencies have not been followed in this case. A failure to comply with the aforequoted Sec. 21(1) of RA 9165 implies a concomitant failure on the part of the prosecution to establish the identity of the seized illegal items as part of the corpus delicti.[26]

PEOPLE v. NICOLAS GUTIERREZ Y LICUANAN APPELLANT.