This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-12-11 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| The Court has of course held that non-compliance with the procedural safeguards provided in Sec. 21 of R.A. 9165 and its IRR would not necessarily void the seizure and custody of the dangerous drugs for as long as there is a justifiable ground for it and the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. Here, however, the buy-bust team did not bother to show that they "intended to comply with the procedure but where thwarted by some justifiable reason or consideration."[16] Accordingly, despite the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, this Court stresses that the step-by-step procedure outlined under R.A. 9165 is a matter of substantive law, which cannot be simply brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality.[17] | |||||
|
2012-04-25 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Consequently, in a line of cases,[15] we have lain emphasis on the importance of complying with the prescribed procedure. Stringent compliance is justified under the rule that penal laws shall be construed strictly against the government and liberally in favor of the accused.[16] Otherwise, "the procedure set out in the law will be mere lip service."[17] | |||||