This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2016-01-25 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Although Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165 mandates that the apprehending team must immediately conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph them, non-compliance therewith is not fatal as long as there is a justifiable ground and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team.[19] While nowhere in the prosecution evidence show the "justifiable ground" which may excuse the police operatives involved in the buy-bust operation from making the physical inventory and taking a photograph of the drug paraphernalia confiscated and/or seized, such omission shall not render Saraum's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him as inadmissible in evidence. Said "justifiable ground" will remain unknown in the light of the apparent failure of Saraum to specifically challenge the custody and safekeeping or the issue of disposition and preservation of the subject drug paraphernalia before the trial court. He cannot be allowed too late in the day to question the police officers' alleged non-compliance with Section 21 for the first time on appeal.[20] | |||||
|
2015-02-09 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| It can be easily understood from a cursory reading of the implementing rules that the crucial factor is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items since they will be used to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.[17] | |||||
|
2014-12-01 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Thus, gleaned from a plain reading of the implementing rules, the most important factor is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as they will be used to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.[19] As long as the evidentiary value and integrity of the illegal drug are properly preserved, strict compliance of the requisites under Section 21 of RA 9165 may be disregarded.[20] | |||||
|
2014-07-30 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Essentially, the findings of fact of the trial court are entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed except for strong and valid reasons since the trial court is in a better position to examine the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying.[26] This rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals[27] as in this case. | |||||
|
2013-06-05 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| As held in People v. Bara[39] citing People v. Campomanes:[40] | |||||
|
2012-02-29 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| This Court has, in many cases, held that while the chain of custody should ideally be perfect, in reality it is not, "as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain."[30] The most important factor is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as they will be used to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.[31] Hence, the prosecution's failure to submit in evidence the physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs as required under Article 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, will not render Mendoza's arrest illegal or the items seized from her inadmissible.[32] | |||||
|
2011-12-14 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Ideally, the procedure on the chain of custody should be perfect and unbroken. However "a testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain."[43] Thus, even though the prosecution failed to submit in evidence the physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs as required under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, this will not render Amansec's arrest illegal or the items seized from him as inadmissible in evidence.[44] This Court has consistently held that "what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, because the same will be utilized in ascertaining the guilt or innocence of the accused."[45] | |||||
|
2011-11-14 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Jurisprudence teems with pronouncements that failure to strictly comply with Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 does not necessarily render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. To reiterate, what assumes utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as these are the critical pieces of evidence in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[16] In this case, as discussed, the integrity and the evidentiary value of the dangerous drug seized from the appellant were duly proven to have been properly preserved; its identity, quantity and quality remained untarnished. We thus see sufficient compliance by the police with the required procedure in the custody and control of the confiscated items. In the similar case of People v. Campomanes,[17] we held: Although Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165 mandates that the apprehending team must immediately conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph them, non-compliance with said section 21 is not fatal as long as there is a justifiable ground therefor, and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team. Thus, the prosecution must demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized have been preserved. | |||||
|
2011-06-01 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Besides, the rule has been settled that the findings and conclusion of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect because the trial courts have the advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses as they testify. This Court will not usually disturb said findings of the trial court in assessing the credibility of the witnesses, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and influence have been overlooked or the significance of which has been misinterpreted by the trial court. This arises from the fact that the lower courts are in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals as in this case.[58] | |||||