This case has been cited 4 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. | |||||
|
2015-03-09 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| PROSECUTOR SERRANO (On Direct Examination) Q: How about the item that was given by the accused to your asset, what happened to that item? A: It was handed over to me by our asset and I put the marking, Sir. Q: Will you please describe to us that item that was handed over to you by your asset, the very same item that the accused gave to your asset in exchange for the marked money? A: A small heat[-]sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white substance suspected as shabu, Sir. Q: You said you made marking on that sachet? A: Yes, Sir. Q: What else did you do[,] if any? A: After I put the marking, we brought it to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory, Sir.[69] PO1 Bautista's testimony is silent as to where the seized sachet was marked.[70] In People v. Sabdula:[71] | |||||
|
2015-02-04 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In People v. Kamad,[12] the Court enumerated the different links that the prosecution must establish to preserve the identity and integrity of the seized items: first, the seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turn over of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turn over by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turn over and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court. These requirements are necessary in order to ensure that the confiscated drug are the same ones presented in court in order to dispel unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence.[13] | |||||
|
2015-01-12 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| It must be noted that marking is not found in R.A. No. 9165 and is different from the inventory-taking and photography under Section 21 of the said law. Long before Congress passed R.A. No. 9165, however, this Court had consistently held that failure of the authorities to immediately mark the seized drugs would cast reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti.[36] | |||||