This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-03-09 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| In dangerous drugs cases, the corpus delicti is the dangerous drug itself. Thus, it is imperative that the integrity of the seized dangerous drug be preserved.[58] | |||||
|
2015-01-12 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The recent case of People v. Beran[48] involved irregularities in the third link. The police officer, who both served as apprehending and investigating officer, claimed that he personally took the drug to the laboratory for testing, but there was no showing who received the drug from him. The records also showed that he submitted the sachet to the laboratory only on the next day, without explaining how he preserved his exclusive custody thereof overnight. All those facts raised serious doubt that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item have not been fatally compromised. Hence, the accused in the said case was also acquitted. | |||||
|
2014-04-21 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The Court explained the importance of establishing the chain of custody over the seized drug in the recent case of People of the Philippines v. Joselito Beran y Zapanta @ "Jose,"[18] as follows: The purpose of the requirement of proof of the chain of custody is to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug are preserved, as thus dispel unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence. To be admissible, the prosecution must establish by records or testimony the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit, from the time it came into the possession of the police officers, until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its composition, and all the way to the time it was offered in evidence. | |||||