This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-06-05 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| We cannot, in good conscience, affirm the conviction of petitioner for possession of illegal drugs if the police officer charged with the preservation of the evidence cannot even be certain in the identification of the envelope that was presented in court. As held in Dolera v. People,[36] there also exists in the present case a reasonable likelihood of substitution, in that the two plastic sachets that tested positive for shabu and were presented in court were not the items allegedly seized from petitioner. This possibility of substitution is fatal for the prosecution,[37] for there is then a failure to prove the identity of the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt.[38] | |||||
|
2011-10-17 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| For a prosecution for illegal possession of a dangerous drug to prosper, it must be shown that (a) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (b) such possession is not authorized by law; and (c) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug.[14] | |||||
|
2011-04-06 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| SPO1 Agadier admitted that he only marked the seized items at the police station. While the rule allows marking of evidence to be done in the nearest police station, this contemplates a case of warrantless searches and seizures.[24] In this case, the police officers were able to secure a search warrant prior to their operation. SPO1 Agadier did not offer an explanation or a justification on why he did not immediately mark the plastic packs of shabu seized inside appellant's house notwithstanding that an inventory receipt was even prepared while the police officers were still inside the house of appellant. They were given sufficient time and opportunity to prepare for its implementation. Thus, failure to comply with the marking of evidence immediately after confiscation constitutes a first gap in the chain of custody. | |||||
|
2010-02-26 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Under the circumstances, reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties is not enough for a conviction. Once challenged by evidence of flawed chain of custody, as in this case, the presumption of regularity cannot prevail over the presumption of innocence.[17] Likewise, while the defense of denial on its own is inherently weak, the conviction of an accused must rely on the strength of the prosecution's evidence and not on the weakness of his defense.[18] | |||||