Most recent post

Mindanao university ordered to close law programs

  The Legal Education Board (LEB) has ordered the Mindanao State University to close its law programs in all its campuses starting academic year 2025-2026 after it approved a resolution canceling MSU’s accreditation. The order stemmed from MSU’s refusal to recognize LEB’s supervisory authority and for asserting that it is not bound by the board’s orders, policies and guidelines on legal education. “The MSU is no longer authorized to offer the basic law program in the country,”  the LEB said. The board made permanent the cease and desist order it issued against MSU’s extension law programs on its campuses in Tawi-Tawi, Sulu and Maguindanao. It expressed concern over what it described as MSU’s “dismal” performance in the Bar examinations, noting the school’s passing rate since 2013 has been below the national passing percentage. Reacting to the LEB’s resolution, the MSU said it would continue to operate in accordance with its chapter passed by Congress in 1955. “The LEB cannot act no

Chain of Custody; RA 10640, (Section 21, as amended)

 Chain of Custody; RA 10640, (Section 21, as amended).


Case No. 3 GR No. 254035


People of the Philippines Vs. Erwin Batino y Evangelista [G.R. No. 254035. November 15, 2021 [Date Uploaded: 02/05/2022]

✍️👨‍⚖️ HERNANDO, J. 


Doctrine:

The elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs are as follows: 


(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and 


(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 


In a buy-bust operation, the receipt by the poseur-buyer of the dangerous drug and the corresponding receipt by the seller of the marked money consummate the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. 


What matters is the proof that the sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited drug, the corpus delicti, as evidence. 


On the other hand, the elements of the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs are as follows: 


(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. 


The rule on chain of custody establishes the identity of the object of the sale or the item possessed by the accused without authority. The purpose of this rule is to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized dangerous drugs in order to fully remove doubts as to its identity. 


"It must be shown that the items presented and identified in court during trial are the very same items that were sold and seized from the accused during the buy-bust operation. Section 21, as amended, provides that the marking, taking of photographs, and inventory of the seized items must be done immediately after seizure and confiscation of the items in the presence of two witnesses (as compared with the previous requirement of three witnesses): an elected public official, and a representative from the National Prosecution Service or the media."


The provision allows for the marking, taking of photographs, and inventory be conducted in the nearest police station or office if practicable in case of warrantless seizures. It further provides that the seized items must be immediately brought to the forensic laboratory for examination. 


"Pursuant to RA 10640, (Section 21, as amended), having two witnesses, (As compared with the previous requirement of three witnesses), an elected public official together with a representative from the National Prosecution service [or] the media, during the marking, inventory, and taking of photographs of the seized items [would be compliant]. (Emphasis supplied)."


Ruling:


Considering all of these, the Court is convinced that the rules on chain of custody were followed. The prosecution, therefore, was able to establish Batino's guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes for Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of dangerous drugs. 


WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The January 23, 2020 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11157 is AFFIRMED. 


Accused-appellant Erwin Batino y Evangelista is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, paragraph 2(3), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended, in Criminal Case No. 26503-2016-C. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of 12 years and one (1) day, as minimum, to 14 years, as maximum and to pay a fine of P300,000.00. 


Accused-appellant is likewise found GUILTY of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended, in Criminal Case No. 26504- 2016-C. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.



People of the Philippines Vs. Erwin Batino y Evangelista [G.R. No. 254035. November 15, 2021 [Date Uploaded: 02/05/2022]

✍️👨‍⚖️ HERNANDO, J. 

J. 


Case No. 3 GR No. 254035

Read full text


----

If you believe this Page has helped you with your legal studies and keeping up with current events, please consider supporting us by clicking ADS once a day. 

This is how our Pages work and how we will continue to provide valuable content related to laws and jurisprudence.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

2024 BAR SYLLABUS | Office of Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez

SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO 2023 BAR EXAMS ON CRIMINAL LAW

Q. No. 2 | Political Law | Suggested Answer | Bar 2023