This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2016-01-11 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| While this Court in certain cases has tempered the mandate of strict compliance with the requisite under Section 21 of RA 9165, such liberality, as stated in the Implementing Rules and Regulations[27] can be applied only when the evidentiary value and integrity of the illegal drug are properly preserved as we stressed in People v. Guru.[28] In the case at bar, the evidentiary value and integrity of the alleged illegal drug had been thoroughly compromised. Serious uncertainty is generated on the identity of the item in view of the broken linkages in the chain of custody. In this light, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty accorded the buy-bust team by the courts below cannot arise. | |||||
|
2012-12-05 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In People v. Guru,[35] this Court, citing Malillin v. People,[36] explained the importance of the chain of custody: As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. | |||||