This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2016-01-18 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In many cases, this Court has held that "while the chain of custody should ideally be perfect, in reality it is not, as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain."[19] Since the law itself provided exceptions to its requirements, the non-compliance with Section 21 of the IRR is not fatal and does not make the items seized inadmissible.[20] The most important factor is "the preservation of the integrity and the evidential value of the seized items as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[21] | |||||
|
2015-08-19 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| On the other hand, in People of the Philippines v. Amy Dasigan y Oliva,[26] the Court held that "[u]nder Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the elements of the offense of illegal possession of dangerous drugs are: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug."[27] | |||||