This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-10-14 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In light of the above disquisition, the Court finds no further need to discuss and pass upon the merits of Mirondo's defense of denial and frame-up. Well-settled is the rule in criminal law that the conviction of an accused must be based on the strength of the prosecution evidence and not on the weakness or absence of evidence of the defense.[31] The accused has no burden to prove his innocence and the weakness of the defense he interposed is inconsequential. He must be acquitted and set free as the prosecution failed to overcome the presumption of innocence in his favor. | |||||
|
2014-06-04 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| A perusal of the Information filed against accused-appellant and Inspector Ompoy's chemistry report reveals a glaring inconsistency in this case. As can be recalled, the Information charges accused-appellant of selling 0.02 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride. Relative to the crime charged, Inspector Ompoy, on the other hand, testified[17] in the following wise: Q: Tell us what kind of tests did you conduct on the specimen? A: This consists of the physical, chemical and confirmatory tests. In the physical this includes the weighing of the specimen out of its container. Specimen "A" weighs 0.04 gram of white crystalline substance. Then I proceeded to my chemical test in which Marqui and Simons tests were employed. In the Marqui test, a drop of Marqui reagent was added to the representative sample and it [yielded] orange-to-brown color which is indicative of the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride. In the Simons test, Simons reagents 1, 2 and 3 were added to another representative sample and it produced a deep-blue color reaction, also indicative of the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride. x x x x Q: For the record, please read the description of Specimen "A" A: One heat-sealed transparent plastic packet with markings containing 0.04 gram of white crystalline substance, placed inside a staple-sealed transparent plastic bag with markings. From the foregoing transcript, the incongruence between the weight of the drug accused-appellant is being charged of selling and the weight of the drug tested by the forensic chemist becomes patent. For sure, this discrepancy in the weight of the substance is fatal to the case of the prosecution.[18] It automatically casts doubt as to the identity of the item seized and of the one tested as it erases any assurance that the evidence being offered is indeed the same as the one recovered during the buy-bust operation. | |||||
|
2013-01-30 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Sale or possession of a dangerous drug can never be proven without seizure and identification of the prohibited drug. In prosecutions involving narcotics, the narcotic substance itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Of paramount importance, therefore, in these cases is that the identity of the dangerous drug be likewise established beyond reasonable doubt.[39] | |||||
|
2010-10-20 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Clearly, there was a break in the chain of custody of the seized substances. The failure of the prosecution to establish the evidence's chain of custody is fatal to its case. Under no circumstance can we consider or even safely assume that the integrity and evidentiary value of the drug was properly preserved by the apprehending officers. There can be no crime of illegal sale of a prohibited drug when nagging doubts persist on whether the item confiscated was the same specimen examined and established to be the prohibited drugs.[38] | |||||
|
2010-08-03 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The Constitution mandates that an accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The burden lies on the prosecution to overcome such presumption of innocence by presenting the quantum of evidence required. In so doing, the prosecution must rest on the strength of its own evidence and must not rely on the weakness of the defense.[30] And if the prosecution fails to meet its burden of proof, the defense may logically not even present evidence on its own behalf. In such cases the presumption prevails and the accused should necessarily be acquitted.[31] | |||||
|
2010-05-14 |
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] | |||||