This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-03-05 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Upon further examination, we find that another gap in the chain of custody is apparent. There was no information on what happened to the drugs after P/Insp. Gural examined it. This Court recognizes that the chemist's testimony was stipulated upon.[31] However, the stipulations did not cover the manner on how the specimens were handled after her examination. Without this testimony, there is no way for this Court to be assured that the substances produced in court are the same specimens the forensic chemist found positive for shabu.[32] Furthermore, most glaring is the fact that the prosecution even stipulated that the forensic chemist had no knowledge from whom the alleged specimens were taken.[33] | |||||
|
2012-10-24 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Incidentally, a survey of recent jurisprudence[47] shows that the Court has consistently imposed a fine of five hundred thousand pesos (PhP 500,000) for violation of Sec. 5, Art. II, RA 9165 in the absence of any aggravating circumstance. | |||||