judgment. Failure to comply with such requirement shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. Similarities and differences Falucho
PEOPLE vs. MORALES 616 SCRA 223 Same; Criminal Procedure; Appeals; A unique nature of an appeal in a criminal case is that the appeal throws the whole case open for review and it is the duty of the appellate court to correct, cite and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned.-We draw attention to the unique nature of an appeal in criminal case: the appeal throws the whole case open for review and it is the duty of the appellate court to correct, cite and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned. On the basis of such review, we find the present appeal meritorious. Same; Same; Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs; Elements.- On the other hand, in the prosecutions for dangerous drug, it must be shown that (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. Similarly, in this case, the evidence of the corpus delicti must be established beyond reasonable doubt. Prevailing jurisprudence uniformly hold that the trial courts findings of fact, especially when affirmed by the CA, are, as a general rule, entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal. However, this rule admits of exceptions and does not apply where facts of weight and substance with direct and material bearing on the final outcome of the case have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied. Evidence presented and relevant law and jurisprudence, we hold that this case falls under the exception. In actions involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must first be established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence. On the other hand, in prosecutions for illegal possession of a dangerous drug, it must be shown that (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. In this case, the evidence of the corpus delicti must be established beyond reasonable doubt. While this Court recognizes that non-compliance by the buy-bust team with Section 21 of RA 9165 is not fatal as long as there is a justifiable ground therefor, for and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team, these conditions were not met. No explanation was offered by the testifying police officers for their failure to observe the rule. PO1 Roy admitted that he was not a PDEA operative and the other witness, PO3 Rivera, testified that he was not aware of the procedure involved in the conduct of anti-drug operations by the PNP. There is serious doubt whether the drug presented in court was the same drug recovered from the appellant. Consequently, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the corpus delicti. Furthermore, the evidence presented by the prosecution failed to reveal the identity of the person who had custody and safekeeping of the drugs after its examination and pending presentation in court. Thus, the prosecution likewise failed to establish the chain of custody which is fatal to its cause. The identity of the corpus delicti in this case was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. There was likewise a break in the chain of custody which proves fatal to the prosecutions’ case. Since the prosecution has failed to establish the element of corpus delicti with the prescribed degree of proof required for successful prosecution of both possession and sale of prohibited drugs, we resolve to ACQUIT Roldan Morales.
187
