This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-08-12 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| First. The lack of a pre-operation report had no effect on the legality and validity of the buy-bust operation as the same is not indispensable thereto.[30] Second. This Court has ruled that marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team. In this light, the marking of the seized sachet of shabu at the police station immediately after the arrival thereat of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation was in accordance with the law, its implementing rules and regulations, and relevant jurisprudence.[31] | |||||
|
2014-11-19 |
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] | |||||