UPDATES in RA 9165 As Amended by RA 10640
UPDATES in RA 9165 As Amended by RA 10640
UPDATES in RA 9165 As Amended by RA 10640
C. People v. Randy Rollo y Lagasca (G.R. No. 211199, March 25, 2015)
SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE ALLOWED
Testimony that included the marking of the seized items at the police
station and in the presence of the accused was sufficient in showing compliance
with the rules on chain of custody. Marking upon immediate confiscation
contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the
apprehending team
The failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted
the required physical inventory in the place where the subject shabu was seized
does not automatically render accuseds arrest illegal or the items seized from
him inadmissible. PROVIDED: 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.
Pertinently, it is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items which must be proven to establish the corpus delicti.
MINOR INCONSISTENCIES IN TESTIMONIES NOT FATAL
Inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses, when referring only to
minor details and collateral matters, do not affect either the substance of their
declaration, their veracity, or the weight of the testimony. Such minor
inconsistencies even enhance their veracity as the variances erase any suspicion
of a rehearsed testimony.
D. People v. Charlie Sorin y Tagaylo (G.R. No. 212635, March 25, 2015)
ACQUITTED DUE TO FATAL LAPSES
-
Police Officer A seized the shabu from accused and turned them
over to Police Officer B (Investigator) WITHOUT MARKING
IT.
Police Officer B did not mark the individual plastic sachets. He
placed the sachets in a transparent plastic cellophane which he
marked.
conduct of which has no rigid or textbook method. However the police carry
out its entrapment operations, for as long as the rights of the accused have not
been violated in the process, the courts will not pass on the wisdom thereof.
G. People v. Rowena Tapugay y Ventura (G.R. No. 200336,
February 11, 2015)
The integrity of the evidence is presumed to have been preserved unless there
is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered
with.
G. People v. Eric Rosauro y Bongcawil (G.R. No. 209588, February 18,
2015)
PRESENTATION
EXCEPTION.
OF
INFORMANT
IS
NOT
INDISPENSABLE;