Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SUSTAIN A CONVICTION
People vs. Barba
G.R. No. 182420, July 23, 2009
Velasco, Jr., J.:
FACTS:
This is an appeal from the decision of the CA affirming the RTC decision
finding Respondent Elsie Barba (Barba) guilty beyond reasonable doubt from
the crime of drug pushing under RA 9165 or The Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002
Pursuant to a surveillance operation and thereafter, a buy-bust
operation conducted by the police, apparent illegal drugs in plastic sachets
and paraphernalia were seized from respondent. After the seizure, they were
marked, brought to the police station, made the subject of a Request for
Examination and then turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory. The report of
the forensic chemist showed that the plastic sachets and the strip of
aluminum foil contained shabu. However, there was no testimony offered as
to the marking of said aluminum foil. The records also do not show what
happened after the seized items were brought to the police station and after
the same were tested at the forensic laboratory.
Barba now alleges that the trial court gravely erred in convicting the
accused-appellant and when it gave credence to the unsupported
testimonies of the prosecutions witness.
ISSUE:
Was the chain of custody presented by the prosecution suffering from
incompleteness due to the non-presentation of the witness who can attest to
an unbroken chain of evidence?
RULING:
Yes, the non-presentation of witness in this case failed to establish the
elements of the offense. The essential elements in a prosecution for sale of
illegal drugs are: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it.
The identity of the subject substance is established by showing the chain of
custody. The chain of custody requirements that must be met in proving that
the seized drugs are the same ones presented in court are: (1) testimony
about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to
the time it is offered into evidence; and (2) witnesses should describe the
precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition
of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have
possession of the item.
raped her. Thus, her conduct before the court does not indicate that she had
been coached.
AAAs healed lacerations on her hymen support her testimony rather than
destroy it. True, a physicians finding that the hymen of the alleged victim
was lacerated does not establish rape. Such result, however, is not presented
to prove the fact of rape; rather, it is presented to show the loss of virginity.
And when, as in this case, the victims forthright testimony is consistent with
the physical finding of penetration, there is then, sufficient basis for
concluding that sexual intercourse did take place.
As regards Martinezs defense of alibi, the accused admitted that it would not
take five minutes to reach his house by normal walking at an average speed.
Thus, it was not physically impossible for accused to be at the crime scene.
Moreover, positive identification of an eyewitness prevails over the defense
of alibi. Hence, accuseds attempt to exculpate himself through alibi must
fail.