This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-11-11 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The fact that the Receipt/Inventory of Property Seized was not signed by Atty. Gaspe does not undermine the integrity and evidentiary value of the illegal drugs seized from accused-appellants. The failure to strictly comply with the prescribed procedures in the inventory of seized drugs does not render an arrest of the accused illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible.[28] What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[29] | |||||
|
2015-02-04 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In a number of cases,[17] the Court sanctioned substantial compliance with the procedure to establish a chain of custody, provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team/officers. There is a liberality on minor deviations as long as there is no gross disregard of the procedural safeguards prescribed in the substantive law. However, when serious uncertainty is generated about the identity of the seized items presented in evidence,[18] liberality ceases and presumption of innocence takes precedence over substantial compliance. | |||||