07-12-2019, 05:15 PM
People vs. Almaser Jodan v. AMLA
GR No. 234773, June 3, 2019
-Elements in the illegal sale of dangerous drugs:
-Compliance with the chain of custody rule is crucial in any prosecution that follows such operation
-Chain of custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory, to safekeeping, and to presentation in court for destruction
-The rule is imperative, as it is essential that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit; and that the identity of said drug is established with the same unwavering exactitude as the required to make a finding of guilt.
-R.A. No. 10640 amended Sec. 21 of RA No. 9165, incorporating the saving clause contained in the IRR and only requiring two (2) witnesses to be present during the conduct of the physical inventory and taking of photograph of the seized items, namely (a) an elected public official; and (b) a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media
-The failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the procedure laid out in Sec. 21 of R.A. 9165 and the IRR does not ipso facto render the seizure and custody over the items as void and invalid, the prosecution must satisfactorily prove that: (a)there is justifiable ground for non-compliance; (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.
-Any evidence, whether oral of documentary, is hearsay, if its probative value is not based on the personal knowledge of the witness.
-Section 36, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that a witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his own personal knowledge, that is, which are derived from his own perception; otherwise, such testimony would be hearsay.
-The justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact because the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist.
GR No. 234773, June 3, 2019
-Elements in the illegal sale of dangerous drugs:
- proof that the transaction of sale took place and
- the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence
-Compliance with the chain of custody rule is crucial in any prosecution that follows such operation
-Chain of custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory, to safekeeping, and to presentation in court for destruction
-The rule is imperative, as it is essential that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit; and that the identity of said drug is established with the same unwavering exactitude as the required to make a finding of guilt.
-R.A. No. 10640 amended Sec. 21 of RA No. 9165, incorporating the saving clause contained in the IRR and only requiring two (2) witnesses to be present during the conduct of the physical inventory and taking of photograph of the seized items, namely (a) an elected public official; and (b) a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media
-The failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the procedure laid out in Sec. 21 of R.A. 9165 and the IRR does not ipso facto render the seizure and custody over the items as void and invalid, the prosecution must satisfactorily prove that: (a)there is justifiable ground for non-compliance; (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.
-Any evidence, whether oral of documentary, is hearsay, if its probative value is not based on the personal knowledge of the witness.
-Section 36, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that a witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his own personal knowledge, that is, which are derived from his own perception; otherwise, such testimony would be hearsay.
-The justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact because the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist.