Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BENEDICTO MARQUEZ Y RAYOS DEL SOL v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 192075 2016-02-10	ROBERTO PALO Y DE GULA v. PEOPLE PEREZ, J.
The fact that the apprehending officer marked the plastic sachet at the police station, and not at the place of seizure, did not compromise the integrity of the seized item. Jurisprudence has declared that "marking upon immediate confiscation" contemplates even marking done at the nearest police station or office, of the apprehending team.[24] Neither does the absence of a physical inventory nor the lack of photograph of the confiscated item renders the same inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items as these would be used in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused.[25]
	GR No. 205741 2014-07-23	PEOPLE v. REYMAN ENDAYA Y LAIG PEREZ, J.
In view of the foregoing, the allegation of appellant that the apprehending officers failed to comply with the mandates of Section 21, particularly paragraph 1, of R.A. No. 9165 has no basis. In addition to this, jurisprudence states that "the phrase 'marking upon immediate confiscation' contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team."[44] Hence, the fact that the seized plastic sachets were marked at the police station only does not deviate from the elements required in the preservation of the integrity of the seized drugs.
	GR No. 200358 2014-04-07	PEOPLE v. GERRY YABLE Y USMAN PEREZ, J.
Moreover, the fact that the marking on the seized item was done at the police station, and not at alleged crime scene, did not compromise the integrity of the seized evidence. As ruled by this Court in Marquez v. People,[17] the phrase "marking upon immediate confiscation" contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team. What is important is that the seized item marked at the police station is identified as the same item produced in court.
	GR No. 201109 2013-10-02	PEOPLE v. JOVI PORNILLOS Y HALLARE ABAD, J.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed[13] the RTC Decision in CA-G.R. CR-HC 03027. It found, like the RTC, the testimonies of PO2 Garcia, PO2 Aldea, and PI Clemen worthy of belief. The prosecution, said the CA, established all the elements of the offense. Pornillos' denial and claim of frame-up could not overcome the positive testimonies of the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation. The police immediately marked the seized items for proper identification and had these inventoried in the presence of Pornillos, a representative of the media, and an elective official as required by Section 21. It has been held that conducting the inventory at the nearest police station constitutes compliance with the law.[14]