Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. SITTI DOMADO

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 207988 2015-03-11	PEOPLE v. BRIAN MERCADO Y SARMIENTO PEREZ, J.
We do not find any provision or statement in said law or in any rule that will bring about the non-admissibility of the confiscated and/or seized drugs due to non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. The issue therefore, if there is non-compliance with said section, is not of admissibility, but of weight evidentiary merit or probative value to be given the evidence. The weight to be given by the courts on said evidence depends on the circumstances obtaining in each case.[31] (Emphases supplied and citations omitted)
	GR No. 195850 2015-02-16	PEOPLE v. ABOLA BIO Y PANAYANGAN DEL CASTILLO, J.
The Court, however, finds that the chain of custody of the seized items was shown to be intact and unbroken notwithstanding the failure of the apprehending officers to mark the evidence upon arrest, to make the inventory, and to take photographs of the same in the presence of the appellant and the persons mentioned in Section 21 of R.A. 9165. As held in People v. Domado,[14] mere lapses in procedures need not invalidate a seizure if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items can be shown to have been preserved. Thus, the CA aptly held, viz: In the recent case of People vs. Jakar Mapan Le, the Supreme Court clarified that there are links that must be established in the chain of custody in the buy-bust situation: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.
	GR No. 212196 2015-01-12	PEOPLE v. RAMIL DORIA DAHIL MENDOZA, J.
Notwithstanding the failure of the prosecution to establish the rigorous requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, jurisprudence dictates that substantial compliance is sufficient. Failure to strictly comply with the law does not necessarily render the arrest of the accused illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. [30] The issue of non-compliance with the said section is not of admissibility, but of weight to be given on the evidence.[31] Moreover, Section 21 of the IRR requires "substantial" and not necessarily "perfect adherence," as long as it can be proven that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[32]
	GR No. 204911 2014-08-06	PEOPLE v. MIKE STEVE Y BASMAN PEREZ, J.
We do not find any provision or statement in said law or in any rule that will bring about the non-admissibility of the confiscated and/or seized drugs due to non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. The issue therefore, if there is non-compliance with said section, is not of admissibility, but of weight evidentiary merit or probative value to be given the evidence. The weight to be given by the courts on said evidence depends on the circumstances obtaining in each case.[26] (Emphasis supplied and citations omitted)
	GR No. 201725 2014-07-18	PEOPLE v. JOY ALCALA Y NOVILLA PEREZ, J.
We do not find any provision or statement in said law or in any rule that will bring about the non-admissibility of the confiscated and/or seized drugs due to non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. The issue therefore, if there is non-compliance with said section, is not of admissibility, but of weight evidentiary merit or probative value to be given the evidence. The weight to be given by the courts on said evidence depends on the circumstances obtaining in each case.[29] (Emphasis supplied and citations omitted)
	GR No. 196146 2014-03-12	PEOPLE v. FREDDIE LADIP Y RUBIO PEREZ, J.
We do not find any provision or statement in said law or in any rule that will bring about the non-admissibility of the confiscated and/or seized drugs due to non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. The issue therefore, if there is non-compliance with said section, is not of admissibility, but of weight evidentiary merit or probative value to be given the evidence. The weight to be given by the courts on said evidence depends on the circumstances obtaining in each case.[38] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 191392 2011-03-14	PEOPLE v. ROLLY SORIAGA Y STO. DOMINGO MENDOZA, J.
On the issue of non-compliance with the prescribed procedures in the inventory of seized drugs, the rule is that it does not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible.[12] The requirements under R.A. No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) are not inflexible. What is essential is "the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused."[13] Thus, in the case of People v. Domado,[14] it was written: From the point of view of jurisprudence, we are not beating any new path by holding that the failure to undertake the required photography and immediate marking of seized items may be excused by the unique circumstances of a case. In People v. Resurreccion, we already stated that "marking upon immediate confiscation" does not exclude the possibility that marking can be at the police station or office of the apprehending team. In the cases of People v. Rusiana, People v. Hernandez, and People v. Gum-Oyen, the apprehending team marked the confiscated items at the police station and not at the place of seizure. Nevertheless, we sustained the conviction because the evidence showed that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items seized had been preserved. To reiterate what we have held in past cases, we are not always looking for the strict step-by-step adherence to the procedural requirements; what is important is to ensure the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as these would determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. We succinctly explained this in People v. Del Monte when we held:
	GR No. 191064 2010-10-20	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO ARANETA Y ABELLA MENDOZA, J.
We point out the defense's failure to contest the admissibility of the seized items as evidence during trial as this was the initial point in objecting to illegally seized evidence. At the trial, the seized shabu was duly marked, made the subject of examination and cross-examination, and eventually offered as evidence, yet at no instance did the appellant manifest or even hint that there were lapses in the safekeeping of seized items that affected their admissibility, integrity and evidentiary value. In People v. Hernandez, we held that objection to the admissibility of evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such objection, he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal.[9]