Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. CHRISTOPHER DE MESA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 198024 2015-03-16	PEOPLE v. RAFAEL CUNANAN Y DAVID DEL CASTILLO, J.
From this sequence of events, the prosecution was able to show an unbroken link in the chain of custody of the subject item which is the proof of the corpus delicti. Its integrity and evidentiary value were shown not to have been compromised notwithstanding the fact that the inventory and photograph thereof which PO1 Gunda claimed to have been made were not offered in evidence. Besides, "[t]he integrity of the evidence is presumed to have been preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will or proof that the evidence has been tampered with."[23] In this case, the defense failed to prove ill motive on the part of the apprehending officers that would have impelled them to fabricate a serious crime against appellant. Also, the alleged inconsistency in the testimonies of PO1 Gunda and PO2 Familara as to who was in possession of the item from the police station to the EPD crime laboratory did not create any doubt that what was submitted for laboratory examination and later presented in court as evidence was the same drug actually sold by the appellant.
	GR No. 207664 2014-06-25	PEOPLE v. GIL SALVIDAR Y GARLAN REYES, J.
In cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Law, appellate courts tend to rely heavily on the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses, because the latter had the unique opportunity, denied to the appellate courts, to observe the witnesses and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under direct and cross-examination. Hence, its factual findings are accorded great respect, even finality, absent any showing that certain facts of weight and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied.[33]
	GR No. 191727 2014-03-31	PEOPLE v. MANUEL APLAT Y SUBLINO DEL CASTILLO, J.
Moreover, "[t]he integrity of the evidence is presumed to have been preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will or proof that the evidence has been tampered with."[28] Notably here, appellant, upon whom the burden of proving that the inventory and marking of the item was not done in his presence, failed to overcome such presumption. While he admitted that there was an inventory, appellant insists that he does not remember if he was present when the same was made. But the photographs[29] taken during the inventory before the representative of the DOJ, media and a barangay official belie appellant's protestation.
	GR No. 188608 2011-02-09	PEOPLE v. RONALDO MORALES Y FLORES PEREZ, J.
This Court likewise sustains the findings of the trial court on the credibility of these prosecution witnesses. In cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Law, appellate courts tend to rely heavily on the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses, because the latter had the unique opportunity, denied to the appellate courts, to observe the witnesses and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under direct and cross-examination. Hence, its factual findings are accorded great respect, even finality, absent any showing that certain facts of weight and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied.[26]
	GR No. 192237 2011-01-26	PEOPLE v. JACQUILINE PAMBID Y CORTEZ VELASCO JR., J.
Evidently, the law itself lays down exceptions to its requirements. Thus, non-compliance with the above-mentioned requirements is not fatal. In fact, it has been ruled time and again that non-compliance with Sec. 21 of the IRR does not make the items seized inadmissible.[25] What is imperative is "the preservation of the integrity and the evidential value of the seized items as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused."[26]
	GR No. 186526 2010-08-25	PEOPLE v. FEDERICO CAMPOS Y RANILE CARPIO MORALES, J.
People v. De Mesa[5] in fact is emphatic: The integrity of the evidence is presumed to have been preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with. Appellants in this case bear the burden of showing that the evidence was tampered or meddled with in order to overcome a presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers and a presumption that public officers properly discharged their duties. (emphasis and understanding supplied)