This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-02-04 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The initial link in the chain of custody starts with the seizure of the plastic sachets from appellant and their marking by the apprehending officer. "Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link, thus it is vital that the seized contraband is immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. 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 at the end of criminal proceedings, obviating switching, 'planting,' or contamination of evidence."[18] A review of the records, however, reveals that the confiscated sachets subject of the illegal sale of shabu were not marked. PO2 Martirez, himself, admitted that he did not put any markings on the two plastic sachets that were handed to him by Borlagdan after the latter's purchase of the same from appellant.[19] While he mentioned that the police investigator to whom he turned over the items wrote something down or made some initials thereon, he nevertheless could not remember who wrote the initials.[20] And albeit later, PO2 Martirez identified the police investigator as SPO1 Desuasido,[21] the latter, however, when called to the witness stand, did not testify that he made any markings on the said sachets or, at the very least, that he received the same from PO2 Martirez. His testimony merely focused on the fact that he prepared the affidavit of a certain Baltazar.[22] | |||||
|
2014-04-21 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In Lito Lopez v. People of the Philippines[20] we acquitted the accused for failure of the police to mark the seized drugs. The Court had a similar ruling in People of the Philippines v. Merlita Palomares y Costuna;[21] the Court acquitted the accused for the prosecution's failure to clearly establish the identity of the person who marked the seized drugs; the place where marking was made; and whether the marking had been made in the accused's presence. These recent cases show that the Court will not hesitate to free an accused if irregularities attended the first stage of the chain of custody over the seized drugs. | |||||