This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-02-18 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| In this case, the Certificate of Inventory[22] prepared by the police officers belies the contention of appellant that there was no compliance with the above-quoted provision. While the said certificate was signed only by the DOJ representative, the failure of the police officers to include the signatures of the other persons enumerated under the subject provision does not affect the evidentiary weight of the subject shabu as the chain of custody of the evidence remained unbroken.[23] In like manner, the absence of photographs of the seized shabu does not render said drugs inadmissible or impair the integrity of the chain of custody of the same.[24] As established by the prosecution, the police officers immediately arrested appellant after his delivery of the sachets of shabu. They took him to the police station together with the seized items and conducted an investigation on his commission of the criminal offense. The Certificate of Inventory was prepared and Sr. Insp. Lizardo made a formal request for a laboratory examination which SPO1 Acosta personally delivered on the same day to the police crime laboratory together with the sachets of shabu marked with his initials "RA." PO1 Florendo received the items and delivered them to P/Insp. Laya, who conducted qualitative tests on the contents of the sachets that had a total weight of 1.67 grams. The results confirmed that the sachets contained shabu. During trial, PO1 Acosta identified the sachets of shabu marked with his initials "RA" as the very same sachets given to him by appellant. He likewise identified appellant to be the same person who delivered the seized sachets of shabu to him. Undoubtedly, the shabu inside the sachets marked "RA" that was submitted for laboratory examination and tested positive was the same dangerous drug delivered by appellant to SPO1 Acosta during the operation and the very same item presented during the trial. Considering that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved, strict compliance with the requisites under said provision of the implementing rules may therefore be disregarded.[25] | |||||
|
2014-04-07 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Time and again, jurisprudence is consistent in stating that substantial compliance with the procedural aspect of the chain of custody rule does not necessarily render the seized drug items inadmissible.[30] In the instant case, although the police officers did not strictly comply with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, their noncompliance did not affect the evidentiary weight of the drugs seized from appellant as the chain of custody of the evidence was shown to be unbroken under the circumstances of the case. | |||||
|
2013-11-27 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, the testimony of PO2 Santos and PO1 Chavez survived the scrutiny of both the trial court judge and the defense counsel and was adjudged to be credible and worthy of belief not only by the trial court but also by the appellate court. This is significant considering that we have stated in jurisprudence that the successful prosecution of drug cases is dependent, in large part, to the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation.[19] In this case, we find no reason to question the credibility of the prosecution witnesses considering that, time and again, we have held that the determination of the credibility of witnesses by the trial court, when affirmed by the appellate court, is accorded full weight and credit as well as great respect, if not conclusive effect.[20] | |||||
|
2013-04-10 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| To reiterate, jurisprudence tells us that substantial compliance with the procedural aspect of the chain of custody rule does not necessarily render the seized drug items inadmissible.[18] Verily, the foregoing narrative clearly shows that the chain of custody rule was substantially complied with by the law enforcement officers involved. | |||||