Scribd
Upload
676 views1 page

Palencia Drug Case Acquittal Analysis

1) Palencia was charged with possession of dangerous drugs after being arrested during an anti-narcotics operation. However, inconsistencies emerged in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. 2) Specifically, the apprehending officer failed to sign his name on the tape used to mark the evidence bag, creating doubt about the chain of custody. Another witness also claimed a different officer made the markings. 3) These inconsistencies, combined with gaps in establishing the chain of custody, meant the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the bag presented in court was the same one seized from Palencia. Therefore, the court acquitted Palencia due to reasonable doubt about his guilt.

Uploaded by

Jelaine Añides
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
676 views1 page

Palencia Drug Case Acquittal Analysis

1) Palencia was charged with possession of dangerous drugs after being arrested during an anti-narcotics operation. However, inconsistencies emerged in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. 2) Specifically, the apprehending officer failed to sign his name on the tape used to mark the evidence bag, creating doubt about the chain of custody. Another witness also claimed a different officer made the markings. 3) These inconsistencies, combined with gaps in establishing the chain of custody, meant the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the bag presented in court was the same one seized from Palencia. Therefore, the court acquitted Palencia due to reasonable doubt about his guilt.

Uploaded by

Jelaine Añides
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
  • Court's Decision: Details the court's decision and its interpretation of the applicable legal standards.
  • Conclusion and Ruling: Summarizes the final ruling and the conclusion drawn by the court.
  • Facts of the Case: Describes the key facts and events leading up to the legal proceedings of the case.
  • Legal Reasoning and Explanations: Explains the legal reasoning and principles applied by the court to reach its conclusion.
  • Legal Issues Raised: Identifies the primary legal questions that the court needed to address in this case.
  • Court Case Overview: Provides a brief introduction to the case including allegations and overall procedural context.

Juandom Palencia vs.

People Held: Rule 133, Section 2 of the Revised Rules on


G.R. No. 219560 | July 01, 2020 Evidence requires proof beyond reasonable doubt for an
accused's conviction:
Facts: Palencia was charged with possession of
dangerous drugs. He was arrested during the course of SECTION 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. — In a
NBI’s anti-narcotics operation which was organized after criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal,
receiving a tip from an unknown person. unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof
beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree
During his apprehension, SPO1 Germodo handcuffed of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces
Palencia, SI (Senior Inspector) Tagle marked the sachet absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or
by putting a piece of masking tape on it and writing that degree of proof which produces conviction in an
"JP"-P 4-21-08 on the tape. unprejudiced mind.

The seized sachet was inventoried in the presence of Neil Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such
Rio (Rio), a news reporter, Ramonito Astillero (Astillero), degree of proof as excluding possibility of error,
a representative from the Department of Justice, and produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is
Merlindo Tamayo (Tamayo), a barangay kagawad. SPO1 required, or that degree of proof which produces
Germodo took pictures. conviction in an unprejudiced mind. (People vs Ganguso)

Rio, Astillero and Tamayo testified that they did not Hence, in drugs cases, to prove that the seized narcotic is
witness the arrest but was only present during the the corpus delicti. The chain of custody must be
inventory after being informed of the arrest. preserved to establish with moral certainty that the drug
presented as evidence in court be the same drug seized
SI Tagle then prepared a transmittal letter and letter from an accused.
request for an examination of the recovered sachet and a
drug test on Palencia. Afterward, he brought the People vs Coreche stressed the indispensability of
documents and the marked sachet to the Philippine marking to prevent the evils of switching, planting, or
National Police Crime Laboratory and handed them to contamination of evidence. People v. Sanchez then
Police Chief Inspector Josephine S. Llena (Chief Inspector emphasized that "marking" pertains to "the placing by
Llena). Upon examination, Chief Inspector Llena reported the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her
that the specimen tested positive for shabu. She then initials and signature on the item/s seized."
resealed the sachet and, on the seal, wrote A D-072-08.
In the case at bar,
During trial, there were inconsistencies in the testimonies SI Tagle failed to sign his signature in the masking tape
of the witnesses. and instead of using a pentel pen, he used a ball pen to
1. SI Tagle failed to sign his signature in the mark the sachets. SI Tagle's failure to do so creates
masking tape and instead of using a pentel pen, doubt, because without his signature, the generic
he used a ball pen to mark the sachets marking of petitioner's initials and date of arrest may as
2. SI Tagle and PO2 Corsame both claimed to be well have been replicated by just about anybody on a
the one who made the markings on the sachets piece of masking tape placed on any plastic sachet of
3. Atillero also testified that when the sachet was shabu.
inventoried after the arrest, it not only carried
the marking "JP"-P 4-21-08, but also A D-072-08 With the substantial gap in the chain of custody caused
—the marking Chief Inspector Llena, the forensic by the insufficient marking and the prosecution
chemist, made after testing the substance inside witnesses' conflicting testimonies, the prosecution was
the seized sachet. unable to prove with moral certainty that the sachet
supposedly seized from petitioner was the same sachet
Issue: Whether or not the prosecution was able to prove presented in court. Hence, the prosecution failed to
Palencia’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt? NO establish the identity of the corpus delicti, warranting
Palencia’s acquittal.

You might also like