Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 128 views

    02 People V Ulat

    Uploaded by

    fcnrrs
    The Supreme Court acquitted Edwin Ulat of drug charges due to reasonable doubt created by inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence regarding the chain of custody of the seized drugs. According to the prosecution, a buy-bust operation recovered methamphetamine from Ulat. However, prosecution witnesses provided conflicting testimonies about where and by whom the drugs were marked and logged into evidence. This raised doubts as to the identity and integrity of the drugs. Establishing the identity of the seized substance as an illegal drug is required to prove the crime. Due to the inconsistencies, the Court held the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    02 People V Ulat

    Uploaded by

    fcnrrs
    128 views1 page
    The Supreme Court acquitted Edwin Ulat of drug charges due to reasonable doubt created by inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence regarding the chain of custody of the seized drugs. According to the prosecution, a buy-bust operation recovered methamphetamine from Ulat. However, prosecution witnesses provided conflicting testimonies about where and by whom the drugs were marked and logged into evidence. This raised doubts as to the identity and integrity of the drugs. Establishing the identity of the seized substance as an illegal drug is required to prove the crime. Due to the inconsistencies, the Court held the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

    Original Description:

    Criminal Procedure; Chain of Custody; Conflicting Testimony; Drugs Case

    Original Title

    02 People v Ulat

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court acquitted Edwin Ulat of drug charges due to reasonable doubt created by inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence regarding the chain of custody of the seized drugs. According to the prosecution, a buy-bust operation recovered methamphetamine from Ulat. However, prosecution witnesses provided conflicting testimonies about where and by whom the drugs were marked and logged into evidence. This raised doubts as to the identity and integrity of the drugs. Establishing the identity of the seized substance as an illegal drug is required to prove the crime. Due to the inconsistencies, the Court held the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    128 views1 page

    02 People V Ulat

    Uploaded by

    fcnrrs
    The Supreme Court acquitted Edwin Ulat of drug charges due to reasonable doubt created by inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence regarding the chain of custody of the seized drugs. According to the prosecution, a buy-bust operation recovered methamphetamine from Ulat. However, prosecution witnesses provided conflicting testimonies about where and by whom the drugs were marked and logged into evidence. This raised doubts as to the identity and integrity of the drugs. Establishing the identity of the seized substance as an illegal drug is required to prove the crime. Due to the inconsistencies, the Court held the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    The law presumes that an accused in a

    criminal prosecution is innocent until the


    contrary is proved. This basic constitutional
    principle is fleshed out by procedural rules
    which place on the prosecution the burden
    of proving that an accused is guilty of the
    offence
    charged
    by
    proof
    beyond
    reasonable doubt.

    People v. Ulat
    G.R. No. 180504. 5 October 2011

    The law prescribes specific procedures on


    the seizure and custody of drugs,
    independently of the general procedures
    geared to ensure that the rights of people
    under criminal investigation and of the
    accused facing a criminal charge are
    safeguarded.

    According to the prosecution, a confidential


    informant relayed information regard the
    illegal drug trade activity of an alias
    Pudong. The police conducted a buy-bust
    operation if indeed there was illegal drug
    trade. The operation proved successful and
    in the polices custody was alias Pudong.
    Then, Pudong was brought to the Makati
    DEU
    for
    proper
    investigation.
    The
    investigator also prepared for a request for
    laboratory examination of the specimen
    purported
    to
    be
    methamphetamine
    hydrochloride, which was obtained from
    Pudong. A sworn statement was also made
    in connection with the buy-bust operation.

    In this case, however, the prosecution failed


    to demonstrate with moral certainty that
    the identity and integrity of the prohibited
    drug, which constitutes the corpus delicti,
    had been duly preserved.
    The records reveal that the prosecution did
    not establish the exact location where the
    confiscated illegal drug was marked and the
    identity of the person who marked it
    because of contradicting testimonies of the
    prosecutions witnesses. The conspicuous
    variance in the testimonies for the
    prosecution casts serious doubt on the
    arresting teams due care in the custody of
    the confiscated illegal drug.
    Taking into consideration all the conflicting
    accounts of the prosecutions witnesses,
    the Supreme Court held that any
    reasonable mind would entertain grave
    reservations as to the identity and integrity
    of the confiscated sachet of shabu
    submitted for laboratory examination.
    In Zaragga v. People, the Supreme Court
    held that the material inconsistencies with
    regard to when and where the markings on
    the shabu were made and the lack of
    inventory on the seized drugs created
    reasonable doubt as to the identity of the
    corpus delicti. Thus, the accused were
    acquitted due to the prosecutions failure to
    indubitably show the identity of the shabu.
    In this case, the acquittal of Ulat is proper
    for the failure of the prosecution to prove
    his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

    Facts:
    Edwin Ulat (Ulat) was charged in an
    information with violation of Section 5,
    Article II of RA 9165. Ulat pleaded not guilty
    when he was arraigned.

    On the other hand, the defence narrated


    that Ulat was at home watching television
    when he saw five to seven men in front of
    their door whom he thought were looking
    for someone. He approached them and
    asked who they were looking for. A gun was
    poked at him and he was told to go with
    them to the barangay hall. He was asked if
    he knew a certain Sandy, which he denied.
    He was brought to the barangay hall and
    then to the Criminal Investigation Division.
    After due proceedings, the trial court
    convicted Ulat of the crime charged against
    him. On review, the Court of Appeals
    upheld the ruling of the trial court. Hence,
    Ulat appealed before the Supreme Court.
    Issue:
    Whether the conviction was proper despite
    the fact that the witnesses for the
    prosecution allegedly presented conflicting
    testimonies on material points regarding
    the chain of custody of the illegal drug
    taken from Ulat.
    Ruling:
    No. The conviction was not proper.

    You might also like