Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 31 views

    Conflicts Case 2

    Uploaded by

    Novo Farms
    1) Police officers conducted a buy-bust operation where a police asset purchased two plastic sachets containing shabu from the defendant. 2) However, the police officers failed to properly mark and identify the seized plastic sachets containing shabu that were bought from the defendant. 3) This break in the chain of custody created uncertainty whether the plastic sachets submitted for testing were the same ones actually bought from the defendant. As a result, the court reversed the defendant's conviction due to reasonable doubt about the identity of the illegal drugs.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Conflicts Case 2

    Uploaded by

    Novo Farms
    31 views2 pages
    1) Police officers conducted a buy-bust operation where a police asset purchased two plastic sachets containing shabu from the defendant. 2) However, the police officers failed to properly mark and identify the seized plastic sachets containing shabu that were bought from the defendant. 3) This break in the chain of custody created uncertainty whether the plastic sachets submitted for testing were the same ones actually bought from the defendant. As a result, the court reversed the defendant's conviction due to reasonable doubt about the identity of the illegal drugs.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Police officers conducted a buy-bust operation where a police asset purchased two plastic sachets containing shabu from the defendant. 2) However, the police officers failed to properly mark and identify the seized plastic sachets containing shabu that were bought from the defendant. 3) This break in the chain of custody created uncertainty whether the plastic sachets submitted for testing were the same ones actually bought from the defendant. As a result, the court reversed the defendant's conviction due to reasonable doubt about the identity of the illegal drugs.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    31 views2 pages

    Conflicts Case 2

    Uploaded by

    Novo Farms
    1) Police officers conducted a buy-bust operation where a police asset purchased two plastic sachets containing shabu from the defendant. 2) However, the police officers failed to properly mark and identify the seized plastic sachets containing shabu that were bought from the defendant. 3) This break in the chain of custody created uncertainty whether the plastic sachets submitted for testing were the same ones actually bought from the defendant. As a result, the court reversed the defendant's conviction due to reasonable doubt about the identity of the illegal drugs.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    26. People vs.

    Butial
    G.R. No. 192785

    Facts:
    That on or about the 21st day of October, 2002, at 10:35 o’clock in the morning,
    more or less, at Purok 4, Barangay Sto. Cristo, Tabaco City, Philippines, the above-
    named accused, with deliberate intent to violate the law, did then and there willfully,
    unlawfully, knowingly and criminally sell, deliver and give away to a poseur-buyer,
    METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE otherwise known as “SHABU”, contained
    in two (2) transparent plastic sachets each weighing approximately 0.1 gm., without the
    necessary government authority, to the detriment of public welfare. The Chief of Police
    of Tabaco City instructed PO2 Martirez and SPO4 Bonavente to conduct a buy-bust
    operation on appellant after receiving information that he was selling illegal drugs. 
    Thus, on October 21, 2002, PO2 Martirez arranged for Borlagdan, a police asset, to act as
    a poseur-buyer and gave him four P100 bills as marked money.  PO2 Martirez, SPO4
    Bonavente and Borlagdan proceeded to Purok 4, Sto. Cristo, Tabaco City to entrap
    appellant.
    Upon their arrival, Borlagdan walked towards a house which is under
    construction. PO2 Martirez and SPO4 Bonavente, on the other hand, hid behind houses
    which were about seven meters away from where Borlagdan was.  Borlagdan
    approached appellant who was then working at the construction site and asked if he
    could purchase shabu.  When an agreement was reached, Borlagdan handed over the
    marked money to the appellant while the latter, in turn, gave him two plastic sachets
    containing white crystalline substance.  After the transaction, Borlagdan walked
    towards the place where PO2 Martirez and SPO4 Bonavente were hiding.  When he
    passed by them, Borlagdan nodded his head as a signal that the sale was already
    consummated and gave the sachets to PO2 Martirez.  Thereupon, the police officers
    came out of hiding. They immediately approached appellant who threw something on
    the ground.  PO2 Martirez arrested appellant and brought him to the police station. 
    SPO4 Bonavente who was left behind searched the place where he saw appellant throw
    something and found therein a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance.  He
    also summoned for the owner of the house being constructed and asked for appellant’s
    belongings.  He was given a backpack which he brought to the police station.

    At the police station, PO2 Martirez ordered appellant to empty his pockets and
    recovered from him one of the four P100 bills used as marked money.  PO2 Martirez
    then turned over the said marked money and the two plastic sachets to the police
    investigator.  When SPO4 Bonavente arrived, he likewise gave appellant’s backpack to
    the police investigator, who, in turn, searched the same.  Found therein were more
    sachets containing white crystalline substance. Two days later, five sachets with white
    crystalline substance were referred and delivered to the crime laboratory for
    examination which all tested positive for shabu.

    Issue:
    Whether there was a failure of the police officers to properly observe the
    procedure outlined in Section 21, RA 9165 and that the same constitutes a break in the
    chain of custody?

    Held:
    The initial link in the chain of custody starts with the seizure of the plastic
    sachets from appellant and their marking by the apprehending officer.  “Marking after
    seizure is the starting point in the custodial link, thus it is vital that the seized
    contraband is immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will
    use the markings as reference.  The marking of the evidence serves to separate the
    marked evidence from the  corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time
    they are seized from the accused until they are disposed at the end of criminal
    proceedings, obviating switching, ‘planting,’ or contamination of evidence. A review of
    the records, however, reveals that the confiscated sachets subject of the illegal sale
    of  shabu were not marked.

    While SPO4 Bonavente testified that he put markings on several sachets


    of shabu allegedly seized from appellant, it cannot be gathered from his testimony that
    the ones he marked were those sachets subject of this case.  Instead, what it suggests is
    that those he marked were the sachets belonging to appellant which he subsequently
    recovered, i.e., the one allegedly thrown away by appellant and picked up by SPO4
    Bonavente from the ground, and those found inside appellant’s bag. Moreover, the
    Request for Laboratory Examination of the items seized suggests that the seized items
    were improperly handled.  As may be recalled, the police officers submitted five sachets
    of shabu for laboratory examination.  Aside from those three sachets marked by SPO4
    Bonavente, the two other sachets were listed and described. Notably, the portion “ and
    One (1) P100.00 with SN ES684504, all placed in a heat-sealed transparent plastic with
    marking [letter] “I” on both sides” was obliterated by pen markings and the erasure was
    initialed by SPO1 Desuasido.  But even without the said erasure, the two transparent
    plastic packets containing white crystalline substance appear to have no markings at all.
    Only the heat-sealed transparent plastic supposedly containing them has the marking
    letter “I,” which holds no significance as the making of the said marking is also not
    supported by any testimony during trial.

    Clearly, the absence of markings creates an uncertainty that the two sachets seized
    during the buy-bust operation were part of the five sachets submitted to the police
    crime laboratory.  The prosecution’s evidence failed to establish the marking of the two
    sachets of shabu subject of this case, which is the first link in the chain of custody and
    which would have shown that the shabu presented in evidence was the same specimen
    bought from appellant during the buy-bust operation.  The lack of certainty therefore
    on a crucial element of the crime i.e., the identity of the corpus delicti, warrants the
    reversal of the judgment of conviction.RoblesvirtualLawlibrary

    ed

    You might also like