Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Ruel Tuano y Hernandez vs. People of The Philippines 2016

    Uploaded by

    Hadjie Lim
    300 views1 page
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that law enforcement did not properly comply with legal requirements to ensure the integrity of the chain of custody for a small amount of drugs seized from the accused. While minor non-compliance may not always invalidate a drug seizure, the Court found that seizing only a miniscule 0.064 gram of drugs required strict adherence to procedures to prove the identity and integrity of the seized substance and the guilt of the accused given the small amount involved. Failure to do so created uncertainty and cast doubt on whether the seized substance was indeed from the accused.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    RUEL TUANO Y HERNANDEZ VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES 2016

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that law enforcement did not properly comply with legal requirements to ensure the integrity of the chain of custody for a small amount of drugs seized from the accused. While minor non-compliance may not always invalidate a drug seizure, the Court found that seizing only a miniscule 0.064 gram of drugs required strict adherence to procedures to prove the identity and integrity of the seized substance and the guilt of the accused given the small amount involved. Failure to do so created uncertainty and cast doubt on whether the seized substance was indeed from the accused.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    300 views1 page

    Ruel Tuano y Hernandez vs. People of The Philippines 2016

    Uploaded by

    Hadjie Lim
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that law enforcement did not properly comply with legal requirements to ensure the integrity of the chain of custody for a small amount of drugs seized from the accused. While minor non-compliance may not always invalidate a drug seizure, the Court found that seizing only a miniscule 0.064 gram of drugs required strict adherence to procedures to prove the identity and integrity of the seized substance and the guilt of the accused given the small amount involved. Failure to do so created uncertainty and cast doubt on whether the seized substance was indeed from the accused.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    RUEL TUANO Y HERNANDEZ VS.

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

    G.R. No. 205871, September 28, 2016

    Summary: Law enforcers should not trifle with the legal requirement to
    ensure the integrity in the chain of custody of seized dangerous drugs and
    drug paraphernalia. This is especially true when only a miniscule amount of
    dangerous drugs is alleged to have been taken from the accused.

    Topic: Criminal Law

    Facts:

    PO2 Santos and PO2 Eduardo Bernardo were conducting surveillance patrol, they saw petitioner waving
    a small plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance they suspected to be "shabu." PO2 Santos
    approached petitioner, introduced himself as a police officer, and inquired about the sachet. PO2 Santos
    confiscated the sachet and brought petitioner to the police station for investigation. He marked the
    plastic sachet with the initials "RHT" then turned it over to police investigator PO2 Llorete. They
    prepared the documents required for filing a case. The confiscated substance brought to the crime
    laboratory yielded positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride.

    Petitioner countered that he was standing along the alley of Kahilum I, Pandacan, Manila with his
    companion "Tek-tek" when police officers arrived to arrest a "Len-len." "Len-len" escaped and the police
    officers arrested them instead.

    When petitioner asked for the reason of his arrest, he was told it was for buying "shabu." Petitioner
    claimed he was just standing there, but the police officers handcuffed him and brought him to the police
    station.

    Issue: Whether or not the none compliance of Sec 21 of RA 9165 validates the confiscation of drugs?

    Held: No. While this Court has ruled that "the failure of the policemen to make a physical inventory and
    to photograph the confiscated items are not fatal to the prosecution's cause," more recent cases
    highlight the need for strict compliance with the legal requirements to protect the integrity of the chain
    of custody, more so when the miniscule quantity of the confiscated substance—0.064 gram, in this case
    —underscores the need for exacting compliance with Section 21.

    Non-compliance with the requirements under Section 21 creates uncertainty on the identity and
    integrity of the confiscated substance. It casts doubt on the guilt of the accused.

    You might also like