Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. SAIBEN LANGCUA Y DAIMLA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 204589 2014-11-19	RIZALDY SANCHEZ Y CAJILI v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
Chain of custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.[36] The function of the chain of custody requirement is to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, so much so that unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence are removed.[37] Thus, the chain of custody requirement has a two-fold purpose: (1) the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, and (2) the removal of unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence.[38]
	GR No. 201156 2014-01-29	PEOPLE v. JOSELITO MORATE Y TARNATE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The chain of custody is basically the duly recorded authorized stages of transfer of custody of seized dangerous drugs, from their seizure or confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory for examination to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.[31] The function of the chain of custody requirement is to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, so much so that unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence are removed.[32] Thus, the chain of custody requirement has a two-fold purpose: (1) the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, and (2) the removal of unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence.
	GR No. 191263 2013-10-16	PEOPLE v. HADJI SOCOR CADIDIA. PEREZ, J.
Even assuming that the said set of facts provided conflicting statements, We have consistently held time and again that minor inconsistencies do not negate the eyewitnesses' positive identification of the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime. As long as the testimonies as a whole presented a coherent and believable recollection, the credibility would still be upheld. What is essential is that the witnesses' testimonies corroborate one another on material details surrounding the commission of the crime.[57]