This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2016-01-11 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| This rationale was reiterated more recently in Sales v. People.[132] This court in Sales upheld the validity of the search conducted as part of the routine security check at the old Manila Domestic Airport—now Terminal 1 of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport.[133] | |||||
|
2014-06-23 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| The rule also requires that the presentation and admission of the seized prohibited drug as an exhibit be preceded by evidence to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be.[39] This requirement is essential to obviate the possibility of substitution, as well as to ensure that doubts regarding the identity of the evidence are removed. The rule is meant to ensure the monitoring and tracking of the movements and custody of the seized prohibited item - from the accused, to the police, to the forensic laboratory for examination, and finally to its presentation in evidence in court. Ideally, the custodial chain would include testimony about every link in the chain or movement of the illegal drug, from the moment it is seized until it is finally adduced in evidence.[40] It cannot be overemphasized, however, that testimony supporting a perfect chain is almost always impossible to obtain.[41] | |||||