Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. GLENN SALVADOR Y BALVERDE

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 192075 2016-02-10	ROBERTO PALO Y DE GULA v. PEOPLE PEREZ, J.
The lower courts correctly rejected petitioner's defense of denial for being self-serving and uncorroborated. Denial is inherently a weak defense which cannot outweigh positive testimony of a prosecution witness.[27] "A defense of denial which is unsupported and unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence becomes negative and self-serving, deserving no weight in law, and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over convincing, straightforward and probable testimony on affirmative matters."[28] In the instant case, the defense of denial fails even more when the petitioner's co-accused, Daguman, confirmed that the petitioner had every intent to possess and was caught in actual possession of shabu.
	GR No. 206910 2015-10-14	PEOPLE v. JULIET PANCHO PEREZ, J.
In People v. Salvador,[16] this Court ruled that the failure to submit in evidence the required physical inventory of the seized drugs and the photograph, as well as the absence of a member of the media or the DOJ, pursuant to Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, is not fatal and will not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible.
	GR No. 198796 2015-09-16	PEOPLE v. NICOLAS LARA III Y AGATEP PERALTA, J.
It is settled that failure to strictly comply with the aforementioned provision will not result in an illegal arrest or the seized items being inadmissible in evidence.[12] Under Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165, substantial compliance is recognized, thus:(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.
	GR No. 215731 2015-09-02	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO CARRERA Y IMBAT VILLARAMA, JR., J.
We have stated that strict compliance with the prescribed procedure is required for the prosecution of illegal sale because of the illegal drug's unique characteristic rendering it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise.[18] It is thus important that the "chain of custody," provided under Section 21(1),[19] Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and Section 21(a),[20] Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165, be established to allay any suspicion of tampering. In a buy-bust operation, the failure to conduct a physical inventory and to photograph the items seized from the accused will not render his arrest illegal or the items confiscated from him inadmissible in evidence as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the said items have been preserved.[21]
	GR No. 201365 2015-08-03	PEOPLE v. MANUELA FLORES Y SALAZAR PERALTA, J.
However, failure to strictly comply with the abovementioned procedure will not render an arrest illegal or the seized items inadmissible in evidence.[12] Substantial compliance is allowed as provided for in Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. 9165. This provision reads: (a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.[13]
	GR No. 195245 2015-02-16	PEOPLE v. JIMMY GABUYA Y ADLAWAN DEL CASTILLO, J.
The Court notes, however, that the CA did not touch upon appellant's assertion that the failure of the police officers to coordinate with the PDEA is a serious procedural defect. Be that as it may, it must be made clear that the resolution of the said issue will not result in appellant's exoneration. The omission of the CA to discuss and pass upon the same in its assailed Decision is not a fatal flaw since coordination of the buy-bust operation with the PDEA is not an indispensable element of the crimes of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs such as shabu.[18]