0 penilaian0% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (0 suara)
80 tayangan3 halaman
The document summarizes the testimony of two expert witnesses in two criminal cases. In both cases, the expert witnesses were forensic chemists who testified that they received specimens from law enforcement for qualitative analysis and determined that the specimens contained methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. They described conducting initial and final tests and preparing laboratory reports. The first witness had no knowledge of how law enforcement obtained the specimen. The second witness explained a discrepancy in weight was due to the high sensitivity of scales used in the crime laboratory.
The document summarizes the testimony of two expert witnesses in two criminal cases. In both cases, the expert witnesses were forensic chemists who testified that they received specimens from law enforcement for qualitative analysis and determined that the specimens contained methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. They described conducting initial and final tests and preparing laboratory reports. The first witness had no knowledge of how law enforcement obtained the specimen. The second witness explained a discrepancy in weight was due to the high sensitivity of scales used in the crime laboratory.
The document summarizes the testimony of two expert witnesses in two criminal cases. In both cases, the expert witnesses were forensic chemists who testified that they received specimens from law enforcement for qualitative analysis and determined that the specimens contained methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. They described conducting initial and final tests and preparing laboratory reports. The first witness had no knowledge of how law enforcement obtained the specimen. The second witness explained a discrepancy in weight was due to the high sensitivity of scales used in the crime laboratory.
Title: People v. Vic Dimaangan Case No.: Criminal Case No. 33488-R Court: RTC Branch 61 Name of Expert Witness: Chemist Date of Testimony:
PSI
Eduard
Gayames,
Forensic
November 4, 2015
The expert witness, PSI Eduard Gayames, was called to
testify. The court interpreter swore in the witness and thereafter stated his name and other personal circumstances. The prosecutor then offered the testimony of the expert witness to prove that he is a forensic chemist and that he conducted the qualitative examination on the specimen submitted. The defense had no objection as to the credibility of the expert witness. (According to the Clerk of Court, the court takes judicial notice that the witness is an expert in the field of analysis of drugs as PSI Eduard Gayames is known to it having been called in to give his testimony in many cases.) The expert witness testified that he is a forensic chemist at the PNP Crime Laboratory located in Camp Bado Dangwa, La Trinidad, Benguet. He explained to the court that he examined a particular item in relation to the case which was submitted to him by SPO1 Tabernero with the request for qualitative examination. Pros. Sudaypan showed to the expert witness an item which the latter identified by pointing to his markings on the sealed envelope. When asked what he did when he received the item, he answered that he immediately conducted an initial laboratory test on the specimen which yielded to a result that such is methamphetamine hydrochloride or commonly known as shabu. He thereafter prepared an initial laboratory report. He also testified that he conducted a final examination on the specimen and then prepared a Chemistry Report.
DINES, Victoria P.
Legal Medicine
December 4, 2015
When asked if he knows where SPO1 Tabernero got the
specimen, he answered that he has no idea. The testimony of the witness was thereafter terminated.
TESTIMONY OF AN EXPERT WITNESS
Title: People v. Renato Lazaro Case No.: Criminal Case No. 35035- R Court: RTC Branch 61 Name of Expert Witness: Chemist Date of Testimony:
PSI
Rowena
Canlas,
Forensic
November 4, 2015
The expert witness, PSI Rowena Canlas, was called to testify.
The court interpreter swore in the witness and thereafter stated her name and other personal circumstances. The prosecutor offered the testimony of the expert witness that she conducted the qualitative examination on the specimen submitted. The defense had no objection as to the credibility of the expert witness. (According to the Clerk of Court, a stipulation was agreed upon by the parties during the Pre-Trial that PSI Canlas is an expert on the field of drugs.) The expert witness testified that she is a forensic chemist at the PNP Crime Laboratory located in Camp Bado Dangwa, La Trinidad, Benguet. She stated that she examined a particular item in relation to the case which was submitted to her by SPO3 Tacio with the request for qualitative examination. Pros. Sudaypan showed to the expert witness an item which the latter identified by pointing to her markings on the sealed envelope. When asked what she did when she received the item, she answered that she conducted an initial laboratory test on the
DINES, Victoria P.
Legal Medicine
December 4, 2015
specimen. The examination yielded to a result that the specimen
is methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. She thereafter prepared an initial laboratory report. She also testified that she conducted a final examination on the specimen and then prepared a Chemistry Report. When asked regarding the discrepancy of the weight of the item examined and the weight recorded in the inventory of the PNP, the expert witness explained that the discrepancy is due to the highly sensitive nature of the digital weighing scale being used in the crime laboratory. The testimony of the witness was thereafter terminated.
CaseDigest☺
G.R. No. 189328 February 21,2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ARNOLD PELIS
G.R. No. 191721 January 12, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROGELIO DOLORIDO y ESTRADA
G.R. No. 181701 January 18, 2012
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EDUARDO DOLLENDO AND NESTOR MEDICE, NESTOR MEDICE
Persons and family relation
Civil code
Case digest
NICANOR T. SANTOS vs. COURT OF APPEALS, CONSUELAO T. SANTOS-GUERRERO and ANDRES GUERRERO
CECILIO MENDOZA vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, and LUISA DE LA ROSA MENDOZA
JUANITA TRINIDAD RAMOS vs. DANILO PANGILINAN
JOSE MODEQUILLO vs. HON. AUGUSTO V. BREVA FRANCISCO SALINAS,
ALBINO JOSEF vs. OTELIO SANTOS
SPOUSES AUTHER G. KELLEY, JR. and DORIS A. KELLEY vs. PLANTERS PRODUCTS, INC. and JORGE A. RAGUTANA
MARY JOSEPHINE GOMEZ and EUGENIA SOCORRO C. GOMEZ-SALCEDO
vs. ROEL, NOEL and JANNETTE BEVERLY STA. INES and HINAHON STA. INES
FLORANTE F. MANACOP vs. COURT OF APPEALS and E & L MERCANTILE, INC.
PABLITO TANEO, JR., JOSE TANEO, NENA T. CATUBIG and HUSBAND, CILIA T. MORING and HUSBAND vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ABDON GILIG
SPOUSES CHARLIE FORTALEZA and OFELIA FORTALEZA vs. SPOUSES RAUL LAPITAN and RONA LAPITAN