ZARRAGA vs. PEOPLE G.R. No. 162064.

March 14, 2006 Evidence Identity of the corpus delicti In People v. Laxa the policemen composing the buy-bust team failed to mark the confiscated marijuana immediately after the alleged apprehension of the accused-appellant. One policeman even admitted that he marked the seized items only after seeing them for the first time in the police headquarters. The Court held that the deviation from the standard procedure in anti-narcotics operations produces doubts as to the origins of the marijuana and concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the corpus delicti. PEOPLE vs. TOKOHISA KIMURA G.R. No. 130805. April 27, 2004 Evidently, the prosecution has not proven the indispensable element of corpus delicti of the crime which failure produces a gravies doubt as to the guilt of the appellants. In criminal cases, proof beyond reasonable doubt is required to establish the guilt of the accused. Similarly, in establishing the corpus delicti, that unwavering exactitude is necessary. Every fact necessary to constitute the crime must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt. PEOPLE vs. ALEJANDRO MENDIOLA G.R. No. 110778. August 4, 1994 Examining the evidence for the prosecution, we find that the prosecution's evidence on the identification of the shabu allegedly seized from accusedappellant is demonstrably weak, unreliable, and unconvincing. Prosecution witnesses clearly failed to identify the shabu presented in court as the very shabu allegedly seized from accused-appellant. Per testimony of PO2 Rodelio Recto, the alleged poseur-buyer, he did not place any identifying mark or his initials on the packet of shabu he allegedly bought or seized from accused-appellant and that it was the investigator, Sotero G. Basilio, who affixed his signature on the packet. However, when said investigator, was called to the witness stand, he testified that he could not find his initials on the plastic bag of shabu submitted in court. These declarations amply demonstrate the inability of the investigator to positively and categorically identify the shabu presented in court as the very shabu sold by or seized from accused-appellant. Withal, the prosecution has failed to prove the indispensable element of corpus delicti of the crime, which deficiency engenders in the mind of the Court serious doubts as to the guilt of accused-appellant. The constitutional presumption of innocence has thus not been overcome by the prosecution. Considering that in criminal cases, proof beyond reasonable doubt is required to establish the guilt of an accused, similarity in identifying the corpus delicti is insufficient; unwavering exactitude in identification is necessary. Every fact necessary to constitute the crime must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt. (People vs. Garcia, 215 SCRA 349 [1992])