Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. MALIK MANALAO Y ALAUYA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 210454 2016-01-13	PEOPLE v. RONALDO CASACOP Y AMIL PEREZ, J.
In this case, all the elements for the illegal sale of shabu were established. POl Signap, the poseur-buyer, positively identified appellant as the person who sold him the white crystalline substance in one plastic sachet which was later proven to be positive for shabu. In exchange for this plastic sachet; PO1 Signap handed the marked money a.s payment. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummated the buy-bust transaction.[15]
	GR No. 190621 2014-02-10	PEOPLE v. GLENN SALVADOR Y BALVERDE DEL CASTILLO, J.
The failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical inventory and photographed the objects confiscated does not ipso facto result in the unlawful arrest of the accused or render inadmissible in evidence the items seized. This is due to the proviso added in the implementing rules stating that it must still be shown that there exists justifiable grounds and proof that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence have not been preserved.[32] "What is crucial is that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved for they will be used in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused."[33]
	GR No. 189840 2013-12-11	PEOPLE v. JAY MONTEVIRGEN Y OZARAGA DEL CASTILLO, J.
In other words, the failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical inventory and take photograph of the objects confiscated does not ipso facto render inadmissible in evidence the items seized. There is a proviso in the implementing rules stating that when it is shown that there exist justifiable grounds and proof that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence have been preserved, the seized items can still be used in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused.[21]
	GR No. 191396 2013-04-17	PEOPLE v. MARILYN AGUILAR Y MANZANILLO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
While a testimony about a perfect and unbroken chain is ideal, such is not always the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.[22] A perusal of the law reveals, however, that failure to strictly comply with the procedure in Section 21 will not render the arrest illegal or the items seized inadmissible in evidence, provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of such items are preserved since they will be used in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[23]