People s.

Castro

Resolution : Affirming the conviction of Ernie N. Castro , Alberto B. Maturan , and

Segred L. Orozco for the crime of murder

In an Amended Information dated December 1, 1998, Manuel D. Osir (Osir), Orozco,

Maturan, and Castro were charged with the crime of murder. It read, in part:
That on or about the 15th day of November, 1998, in the City of Surigao,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping one another,
taking advantage of superior strength and by means of treachery and armed with
pointed weapons, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack,
assault and stab Julius Joshua Mata with the use of said pointed weapons hitting
the latter on the vital parts of his body, thereby inflicting upon him serious and
mortal wounds which caused the death of said Julius Joshua Mata, to the damage and
prejudice of the heirs of the deceased in such amount as may be allowed by law.

Eyewitness Susan Lalona (Lalona) testified that on the evening of November 15,
1998, she was at Murillo's Restaurant,[8] Magallanes Street, Surigao City with her
friend and herein victim, Julius Joshua Mata (Mata). They were the only customers
at that time

RTC

Issue :

WON the killing was attended by circumstances which qualify the crime as murder?

Ruling:

The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift,
deliberate , and unexpected manner , affording the hapless, unarmed, and
unsuspecting victim no change to resist or escape. For treachery to be considered,
two elements must concur: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the
persons attaked no opportunity to defend themselves or retaliate; and (2) the means
of execution were deliberately or consiciously adopted.

The circumstances proved by the proseuction amly show that treachery attended the
killing of Mata:

To make matters worse, four persons, who were armed with knives, ganged-up on Mata.
Certainly, Mata was completely deprived of any prerogative to defend himself or to
retaliate.[39]

Accused-appellant claims that the prosecution failed to prove that treachery

attended the killing of Mata, positing that the finding of treachery was based only
on the fact that Orozco stabbed Mata suddenly in the back, which is insufficient to
establish treachery.[40] This argument has no merit. Contrary to accused-
appellant's contention, the finding of treachery was not based only on Orozco's act
of swiftly stabbing Mata from behind. As observed by the Court ofppeals, Mata was
helpless against a group of persons with knives, who ganged up on him and held his
hands while stabbing him.

People vs. Saragena

Even if there was a sale, the corpus delicti was not proven as the chain of custody
was defective.
The corpus delicti is the body of the crime that would establish that a crime was
committed. In cases involving the sale of drugs , the corpus delicti is the
confiscated illicit drug itself , the integrity of which must be preserved.

This Court emphasizes that " ostensibly approximate compliance " does not suffice ;
rather , there must be actual compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.
Not doing so is tantamount to a failure to establish the corpus delicti, a crucial
element of the crime charged.

People v. Kamad
Chain of Custody Implementing Rules and Regulations

1. The apprehending officer seizes and then marks the dangerous drug taken from the
accused. The chain of custody of evidence must show the time and place that the
seized item is marked and the names of the officers who marked it.

2. The apprehending officer turns over the seized dangerous drug to the
investigating officer. The chain of custody of evidence must establish the names of
officers who inventoried, photographed , and /or sealed the seized item.

3. The investigating officer turns over the seized dangerous drug to the forensic
chemist for laboratory examination. The chain of custody of evidence must show the
names of officers who had custody and received the evidence from one officer to
another within the chain.

4. The forensic chemist turns over and submits the marked confiscated dangerous
drug to the court. Similarly, the chain of custody of evidence must show the names
of officers who had custody and received the evidence from one officer to another
within the chain.

A]n unbroken chain becomes indispensable and essential in the prosecution of drug
cases owing to its susceptibility to alteration, tampering, contamination and even
substitution and exchange. Accordingly, each and every link in the custody must be
accounted for, from the time the shabu was retrieved from [accused-appellant]
during the buy-bust operation to its submission to the forensic chemist until its
presentation before the R[egional] T[rial] C[ourt]. In the case at bench, the
prosecution failed to do so.[

This is especially true where the weight of the seized item is a miniscule amount
that can be easily planted and tampered with.