This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2015-08-03 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Flores argues that the arresting officers violated Section 21, Article II of the IRR of R.A. 9165 and the chain of custody rule. The rule on chain of custody expressly demands the identification of the persons who handle the confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring the authorized movements of the illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia from the time they are seized from the accused until the time they are presented in court. Moreover, as a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered in evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the possession of the witness, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. Also, crucial in proving the chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related items immediately after they are seized from the accused.[14] It is settled that non-compliance with the procedure outlined in Section 21, Article II of the IRR of R.A. 9165 shall not render void and invalid such seizure as long as the apprehending officers are able to successfully preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items.[15] | |||||