This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2015-01-12 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Notwithstanding the failure of the prosecution to establish the rigorous requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, jurisprudence dictates that substantial compliance is sufficient. Failure to strictly comply with the law does not necessarily render the arrest of the accused illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. [30] The issue of non-compliance with the said section is not of admissibility, but of weight to be given on the evidence.[31] Moreover, Section 21 of the IRR requires "substantial" and not necessarily "perfect adherence," as long as it can be proven that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[32] | |||||