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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 33 views

    People of The Philippines Vs Fandialan

    Uploaded by

    Epalan Justine Angelica
    The Supreme Court acquitted the accused-appellant of violating drug laws, finding that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the drugs seized. Specifically, the Court found a gap in how the drugs were handled, stored, and safeguarded between the forensic chemist's examination and presentation in court. As the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti were thus compromised, reasonable doubt existed as to whether the drugs examined were the same as what was presented in court.

    Copyright:

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

    People of The Philippines Vs Fandialan

    Uploaded by

    Epalan Justine Angelica
    33 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court acquitted the accused-appellant of violating drug laws, finding that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the drugs seized. Specifically, the Court found a gap in how the drugs were handled, stored, and safeguarded between the forensic chemist's examination and presentation in court. As the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti were thus compromised, reasonable doubt existed as to whether the drugs examined were the same as what was presented in court.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    People of the Philippines vs Fandialan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court acquitted the accused-appellant of violating drug laws, finding that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the drugs seized. Specifically, the Court found a gap in how the drugs were handled, stored, and safeguarded between the forensic chemist's examination and presentation in court. As the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti were thus compromised, reasonable doubt existed as to whether the drugs examined were the same as what was presented in court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    33 views3 pages

    People of The Philippines Vs Fandialan

    Uploaded by

    Epalan Justine Angelica
    The Supreme Court acquitted the accused-appellant of violating drug laws, finding that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the drugs seized. Specifically, the Court found a gap in how the drugs were handled, stored, and safeguarded between the forensic chemist's examination and presentation in court. As the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti were thus compromised, reasonable doubt existed as to whether the drugs examined were the same as what was presented in court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    People of the Philippines vs Fandialan

    FACTS:

     Joel Fandialan, accused-appellant was charged with violation of Sections


    5 and
    11, Article II of RA 9165.
     POI Lubrin testified that around 9:30
    p.m. of 10 November 2015, he and PO2 Francis Caparas (PO2
    Caparas) were on duty at Bay Municipal Police Station, Bay, Laguna
    when their confidential informant (CI) came to their office and reported that he would
    be buying shabu
    from Fandialan alias "Pusa" that night. PO1 Lubrin claimed they
    relayed the information to Police Chief Inspector Owen Banaag (PCI
    Banaag) who immediately formed a buy-bust team to entrap
    Fandialan.
     POI Lubrin claimed that
    Fandialan agreed to meet the CI that night. Upon arrival of Fandialan they were
    introduced by the CI as a user who
    would like to buy shabu. He handed the
    buy-bust money to Fandialan who, in tum, handed over a small plastic
    sachet of suspected shabu. PO I Lubrin alleged that he immediately
    grabbed Fandialan's arm then introduced himself as a police officer
    and that PO2 Caparas immediately rushed to assist hini. POI Lubrin
    claimed that after apprehending Fandalian, PO2 Caparas was able to
    recover the marked buy-bust money from Fandialan.
     POI Lubrin claimed that he then ordered Fandialan to take out
    all other things he was keeping and in the process, a "Mentos" candy
    container was recovered from Fandialan. PO1 Lubrin alleged that he
    opened the candy container and saw the three small plastic sachets of
    suspected shabu.
     The RTC found accused appellant guilty of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA
    9165. Upon appeal, the CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not accused-appellant


    is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article
    II of RA 9165.
    RULING:

    No,

    The elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5,


    Article II of RA 9165 are: "(a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the
    object, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and
    the payment." 13 Meanwhile, the elements of Illegal Possession of
    Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 are: "(a) the
    accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited
    drug; (b) such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the accused
    freely and consciously possessed the said drug.
    For a successful prosecution of the offenses of Illegal Sale and/or
    Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, the prosecution must establish with
    moral certainty not only the elements mentioned above but also the
    identity of the dangerous drug, which in itself constitutes an integral part
    of the corpus delicti of the offenses. 15 Hence, the prosecution must be
    able to account for each link in the chain of custody from the moment
    the dangerous drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as
    evidence of the offense.
    In the chain of custody of the confiscated item, the links that
    should be established are the following: (1) the seizure and marking of
    the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer;
    (2) the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to
    the investigating officer; (3) the turnover by the investigating officer of
    the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and
    (4) the turnover and submission of the illegal drug from the forensic
    chemist to the court.
    In this case, the Court finds that there was a gap or break in the
    fourth link of the chain of custody. "It has been held that there is a gap or
    break in the fourth link of the chain of custody where there is absence of
    evidence to show how the seized shabu was handled, stored, and
    safeguarded pending its presentation in court."
    The testimony of forensic chemist Bombasi is not sufficient to establish the
    fourth link of the
    chain as nothing was mentioned regarding the following necessary
    pieces of information: (1) condition of the specimens when FC Bombasi
    received them; (2) description of the method utilized in analyzing the
    chemical composition of the drug samples; (3) whether she resealed the
    specimens after examination of the content and placed her own marking
    on the drug items; and (4) manner of handling and storage of the
    specimens before, during, and after the chemical examination. There was
    likewise no showing that she took precautionary measures after
    examination of the seized drug items to preserve their integrity and
    evidentiary value
    The prosecution's failure to establish with moral certainty the
    identity and the unbroken chain of custody of the dangerous drugs
    allegedly seized from accused-appellant creates reasonable doubt on
    whether the said illegal drugs were the same drugs presented in court.
    This undoubtedly compromises the identity, integrity, and evidentiary
    value of the corpus delicti of the offenses charged. Hence, acquittal is in
    order

    You might also like