This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-03-11 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The Prosecution cannot avoid confronting the issue of the broken chain of custody by embellishing its case with the presumption of regularity. This presumption, which is not conclusive, vanishes upon the slightest hint or taint of irregularity.[25] It stands only when nothing suggests that the law enforcers involved deviated from the standard conduct of official duty as provided for in the law. But where, like here, the official act in question is irregular on its face, the presumption does not arise as a matter of course.[26] As such, the non-conformity with the requirements for preserving the chain of custody on the part of the arresting lawmen closed the door to the application of the presumption of regularity. | |||||
|
2015-03-11 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The Prosecution cannot avoid confronting the issue of the broken chain of custody by embellishing its case with the presumption of regularity. This presumption, which is not conclusive, vanishes upon the slightest hint or taint of irregularity.[25] It stands only when nothing suggests that the law enforcers involved deviated from the standard conduct of official duty as provided for in the law. But where, like here, the official act in question is irregular on its face, the presumption does not arise as a matter of course.[26] As such, the non-conformity with the requirements for preserving the chain of custody on the part of the arresting lawmen closed the door to the application of the presumption of regularity. | |||||