This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-03-25 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| The Court cannot over-emphasize the significance of marking in illegal drugs cases. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings, thus, preventing switching, planting, or contamination of evidence.[43] Hence, in People v. Sabdula,[44] the Court acquitted the accused on the ground of failure to mark the plastic sachets confiscated during the buy-bust operation, to wit: How the apprehending team could have omitted such a basic and vital procedure in the initial handling of the seized drugs truly baffles and alarms us. We point out that succeeding handlers of the specimen would use the markings as reference. If at the first or earliest reasonably available opportunity, the apprehending team did not mark the seized items, then there was nothing to identify it later on as it passed from hand to hand. Due to the procedural lapse in the first link of the chain of custody, serious uncertainty hangs over the identification of the shabu that the prosecution introduced into evidence. | |||||
|
2015-02-04 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The importance of marking is emphasized in People v. Salonga:[15] | |||||