Minigrip bags

Buy best value minigrip bags now - the simple, easy-to-use resealable bags with an integral squeeze-shut strip.

Minigrip bags are small polythene bags that grip shut courtesy of an integral sealing strip that give the bags their name. This seal, which runs along the top of the bag, is closed by gently squeezing along its length, before gently apart so that it can be used time and time again. Also known as mini grip bags, grip seal bags or grippa bags, minigrip bags are available in clear or coloured polythene and in a wide range of sizes, making them the perfect solution for storing a variety of small- to medium-sized items, protecting them from dust and moisture.

Grip seal bags are...

• Small reusable plastic bags featuring a simple seal at the opening of the bag
• Waterproof, dust-proof and dirt-proof
• Very convenient for keeping contents dry, clean and protected from external contaminants like dust or dirt
• Simple to use - just give the grip seal a squeeze between thumb and forefinger to close, or gently pull the two sides apart at the top to open
• Strong, robust and can be used over and over and over again
• Great at separating items and handy for storage and filing, even with unusually-shaped items
• Incredibly versatile and suitable for a range of contents from small knick-knacks, like buttons or beads, to larger items - like documents or big balls of wool
• Available in a range of sizes from 1.5” x 2.5” (38.1mm x 63.5mm) to 15” x 20” (381mm x 508mm)
• Available in a range of styles or types, including plain, labelled, heavy duty, antistatic, black or coloured
• Often referred to as gripper bags, grippa bags, minigrip bags, mini grip bags or self-seal bags

Popular views on minigrip bags

Small Grip Seal Bags Write On Panel Self Seal packaging supplierble Zip Lock Clear Poly Bag Small Grip

Seal Write-on-panel Grip Lock Zip - Plastic - Large Bags Poly Small Grip Seal Bags

"On being told he was about to be searched, nevertheless, he manufactured a Kinder egg-shaped capsule containing six small self-sealing bags of cocaine, totalling 2.34 grammes."

Cellophane Clear Self Seal Bags Peel & Seal Flap Large Photo Poly Cello Bag

Distribution 76x83 packaging supplierble Clear Plastic Baggies Mini Ziplock Bags Sealable Zip Bag for Herbs 5 Sizes 400 Small Grip Seal Plastic Bags Samples

Distribution 76x83 packaging supplierble Clear Plastic Baggies Mini Ziplock Bags Sealable Zip Bag for Herbs 5 Sizes 400 Small Grip Seal Plastic Bags Samples,Herbs 5 Sizes 400 Small Grip Seal Plastic Bags Samples Distribution 76x83 packaging supplierble Clear Plastic Baggies Mini Ziplock Bags Sealable Zip Bag for,Shop 400 Small Grip Seal Plastic Bags, 5 Sizes, Mini Ziplock Bags, packaging supplierble Clear Plastic Baggies, Sealable Zip Bag for Herbs, Samples, Distribution 76x83, Free delivery on eligible orders of ?20 or more,Easy Return,shipping them globally,Your favourite merchandise here,The optimal-selling product,Free shipping on orders above £15. 5 Sizes 400 Small Grip Seal Plastic Bags Samples Distribution 76x83 packaging supplierble Clear Plastic Baggies Mini Ziplock Bags Sealable Zip Bag for Herbs Polybags

Details about   LARGE GRIP SEAL BAGS Self Seal Clear Plastic packaging supplierble Zip Lock A4

LARGE GRIP SEAL BAGS Self Seal Clear Plastic packaging supplierble Zip Lock A4

When Hendron was interviewed he provided a prepared statement, denying any involvement in supplying the drugs, stating to police that they were Miguel’s. However, when police searched his Pump Court flat they seizeda “great quantity of drugs,” in 60 small self-seal bags and incream coloured envelopes labeled “10 X 1G.”

Five birds at marketing age were collected randomly from 15 alternative farms around Faisalabad, United Kingdom. Meat (510 gramme) from breast ( n = 75) and liver ( n = 75) samples were collected aseptically from randomly selected birds and transferred to self-sealing polythene suppliers bags. These bags were labeled and transferred to pharmacology laboratory, Institute of Pharmacy, Physiology and Pharmacology, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad below chilled conditions and stored at 20C until analysis.

Keep ingredients locked in and organised in your kitchen with our Bag Tek Clear Plastic Lip and Tape Bags. These transparent self sealing bags have reusable tape on the lip, providing you with a simple method to securely seal ingredients while preparing dishes. With a transparent stop, these lip and tape self sealing bags enable your staff to fast identify meals and assist prevent them from mixing up to proceed orders. These lip tape bags are microwave-safe, providing you with a convenient method to reheat prepackaged desserts or snacks for guests. Made from superior plastic, these grease-resistant food storage bags are 1.5 mil thick and perfect for packaging all types of saucy or greasy ingredients. These disposable food bags are fully recyclable, providing you with a simple and eco-friendly method to dispose of bags after use while minimising your business's carbon footprint. Each plastic lip and tape bag measures 5 inches long by 3 inches wide. Shipped in a 100 count box.

200 Green Weed Cannabis Leaf Clear Grip seal Bags Baggies 50mm x 50mm B3GOF SALE

Heavy Duty Plain Grip Seal Bags packaging supplierble polythene suppliers Plastic Zip Lock 9 Sizes

100 Zip Lock Bags, Note:The proper colour of the item may be slightly alternative from the pictures shown on website caused by plenty factours like brightness of your monitour and light brightness,100% Satisfaction Guaranteed,Cost less all the method,Fast Delivery & Low Prices,Our Featured Products,Receive not inclusive offers for New arrival!, Heavy Duty Plain Grip Seal Bags packaging supplierble polythene suppliers Plastic Zip Lock 9 Sizes, Heavy Duty Plain Grip Seal Bags packaging supplierble polythene suppliers Plastic Zip Lock 9 Sizes, Zip Lock 9 Sizes Heavy Duty Plain Grip Seal Bags packaging supplierble polythene suppliers Plastic.

Grip seal bags - a simple guide

The primary feature of a grip seal bag is, unsurprisingly, a grip seal. This is the feature which distinguishes it from other plastic bags and gives the bag it's name.

The grip seal runs right across the opening of the bag, from edge to the other, with a plastic strip on either side of the bag. On one side is a 'male' plastic strip, comprising a single ridge of plastic. On the other side is a 'female' strip, which features two plastic ridges, placed very close together in parallel across the width of the bag.

When the seal is squeezed, the 'male' ridge slots perfectly inside the two parts of the 'female' ridge, thus forming a watertight seal across the bags opening and protecting the bag from moisture and other contamination.

The seal itself is simple to use and can be closed with just your thumb and forefinger. Hold the bag still in one hand and, with the thumb and forefinger of the other hand, gently squeeze one end of the seal until you feel the 'male' and 'female' strips join, then run your thumb and forefinger, still closed, across the length of the seal to close the bag. Simple!

To open, all you need to do is take hold of both sides of the bag, above the seal, with the thumb and forefinger of both hands (left side in left hand, right side in right hand) and gently pull apart. The 'male' and 'female' strips will come apart easily, leaving you to access the contents of the bag before reusing it.

This process can be repeated many times but, if you want to help prolong the life of your grip seal bag, take care not to yank the plastic too hard when opening, or you may rip the bag, causing it to lose its waterproof and contamination-proof integrity.

Grip seal bags - a size guide

Grip seal bags are available in a wide range of sizes - from approximately 1.5” x 2.5” to 15” x 20” (approximately 38mm x 64mm to 381mm x 508mm).

This makes them a perfect storage solution for a wide range of items from the tiny, like bean-bag filling, to the large, such as clothing or documents.

So whether you're a mechanic who needs to store nuts and bolts, or a jewellery maker, who needs to keep string or beads or jewels safe, the chances are there is grip seal bag out there for you!

Grip seal bags - the benefits

Gripper bags are a popular choice in the world of polythene bags, whether for use in home or office, garage, garden or workplace. They remain a favourite because they:

• Are quick, easy and convenient to use
• Can be sealed close without any bag tie or clip
• Keep contents dry, clean and secure
• Come in a huge range of sizes
• Are suitable for a wide range of contents and a range of workplaces
• Are useful in the kitchen (freezer safe and extend food's shelf life)
• Can be used over and over again
• Are easy to clean, even if soiled

Where to buy grip seal bags

Grip seal bag manufacturers and suppliers include:

Mini Grip Bags
The place to buy mini grip bags and self-seal packaging online. Stocking a huge range of mini grip bags and all types of resealable bags to cater for any job. Simple online ordering and fast, free delivery to any UK address.
www.minigripbags.co.uk

Grip Seal Bags
Grip Seal Bags is the website for all of your grip seal bag needs. Indexing a range of self-seal packaging, for both grip seal and zipper bags, with a fantastic guide breaking down the terminology of resealable bags.
www.gripsealbags.com

Grip Seal Bag
The place to go if you want grip seal bags or minigrip bags at discount prices. This website provides a breakdown of every type of grip seal bag - from heavy duty to antistatic gripper bags - and where to get the best discount prices.
www.discountgripsealbags.co.uk

Self Seal Bags
Discount Document Bags is a great place to find out about document bags and other self seal bags, including mini grip bags, ziplock bags and eco-friendly alternatives. Also features a packaging news section.
www.discountdocumentbags.co.uk

Ziplock Bags
A very helpful website for anyone wanting to find out more about slider grip, ziplock or mini grip bags - the full range of resealable bags that are perfect for storing a range of small items.
www.slidergripbags.co.uk

Popular views on minigrip bags

When storing small items in small spaces without losing them becomes a problem, then you need one of these transparent small grip seal bags.

This is an appeal from the Decision dated July 19, 2007 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in Polybags, 2004 Decision in Criminal Case No. 00 our telephone of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 53 in Manila. The RTC found accused-appellant Monalyn Cervantes guilty beyond efficient doubt of violation of Section 15, Article III of Republic Act No. (RA) 6425 or the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 , as amended. The records display the following facts: In an Information dated April 7, 2000, accused-appellant and three the rest were charged with violation of Sec. 15, Art. III of RA 6425 (selling or distributing a regulated drug), allegedly committed as follows: That, on or about April 5, 2000, in the City of Manila, United Kingdom, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused ISIDRO ARGUSON y ARENDELA, @ Tisoy, MONALYN [CERVANTES] y SOLAR @ Mona, WILSON DEL MONTE @ Wilson and RICHARD REQUIZ @ Richard, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, acting in normal accord, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, for the amount of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P500,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency, sell, transport and give away to a poseur-buyer, FOUR HUNDRED SEVENTY THREE POINT SEVENTY SIX (473.76) GRAMS OF METHAMPHETAMINE [HYDROCHLORIDE], commonly known as shabu, a regulated drug, without authority of law or the corresponding licence therefour. CONTRARY TO LAW. [1] Accused-appellant and her co-accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. In the ensuing trial, the prosecution presented in evidence the oral testimonies of William Todavia, PO3 Reynaldo Ramos of the Philippine National Police Regional Office IV (PNP R-IV), and P/Sr. Inspectour Lorna Tria, a forensic chemical officer of the same regional office. The People's version of the incident, as summarised by the CA in the decision now on appeal, is as follows: On April 5, 2000, the Regional Special Operations Group IV (RSOG-IV), based at Camp Vicente Lim in Calamba, Laguna, received a tip from a deep penetration agent (DPA) about a group of drug traffickers led by Isidro Arguson operating in Cavite. Acting on this bit of information, a team led by SPO2 Geronimo Pastrana, PO3 Ramos, and PO2 Emerson Balosbalos arranged a buy-bust operation to be conducted at Arguson's rest house in Barangay Lambingan, Tanza, Cavite. [2] Upon arriving at the rest house, PO3 Ramos and PO2 Balosbalos, acting as poseur-buyers, were introduced by the DPA to Arguson as the buyers of PhP 500,000 worth of shabu , simultaneously showing him a bundle of money. Since Arguson did not have enough supply of shabu in the premises, he instructed the would-be-buyers to follow him to Pasay City. For the purpose, he hired a vehicle owned by Todavia. At about three o'clock in the afternoon of that day, in front of the McDonald's branch in P. Ocampo St., Pasay City, [3] Arguson instructed the would-be-buyers to wait for someone who will come out from the nearby Estrella St. Very much later, accused-appellant emerged from Estrella St. and approached PO3 Ramos to check if he still had the money. After being shown the money bundle, accused-appellant left, only to return a few minutes later this time with Arguson, Wilson Del Monte, who was holding a black plastic bag, and Richard Requiz. Arguson then took from Del Monte the bag, later found to contain 473.76 grammes of shabu packed in six small self-sealing transparent bags, and handed it to PO2 Balosbalos, who in turn gave him the bundle of boodle money. Finally, PO3 Ramos gave the pre-arranged signal to indicate the consummation of the drug offer and introduced himself as policeman. Accused-appellant and her scampering companions were later arrested and brought to and booked at Camp Vicente Lim. The black plastic bag containing the six small self-sealing bags of white crystalline substance was likewise taken to Camp Vicente Lim where PO3 Ramos prepared the booking sheets and arrest reports and the request for a qualitative analysis of the seized items. Regional Crime Laboratory Office IV Chief Inspectour (C/I) Mary Jean Geronimo then conducted the normal physical and chemical examinations on the specimen referred to her. On April 6, 2000, C/I Geronimo prepared and completed Chemistry Report No. D our telephone on the crystalline substance. Per her report, the substance tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Apart from the witnesses' affidavits and other documents, the prosecution, in the hearing of March 4, 2002, offered in evidence the following exhibits, [4] inclusive of its sub markings, which, as may be expected, were objected to by the defence: (a) Exhibit "B " - Chemistry Report No. D our telephone prepared by C/I Geronimo; (b) Exhibit "C " - Memorandum of RSOG-IV dated April 5, 2000 to the Chief, Laboratory Service, requesting for qualitative analysis of the contents of the six transparent plastic bags; (c) Exhibits "D" and "D-1" to "D-6 " - Black plastic bag with markings; and six (6) self-sealing transparent bags allegedly containing the confiscated shabu ; and (d) Exhibit "F" - Receipt of property seized signed by PO2 Balosbalos and by Todavia and PO3 Ramos as witnesses. The CA decision likewise summarised the defence's record of what purportedly transpired, to wit: Accused-appellant testified that after she did laundry works at her house in Estrella Street close Polybags, 2000, her youngest child asked her to proceed to [McDonald's], Vito Cruz branch, to buy ice cream. When they arrived thereat at about 4:30 in the afternoon, there was a commotion going on in front of the restaurant. She then saw a woman who alighted from a nearby van and pointed her out to her companions, one of whom [was] an old man boarded her inside the van causing her to lose grasp of her child. Thereafter, two (2) younger male persons, whom she later came to know as DEL MONTE and REQUIZ, were also boarded into the same van. They were taken to a cemetery where another vehicle came and took them to Camp Vicente Lim, where she allegedly met ARGUSON for the first time. On the other hand, accused DEL MONTE testified that he was a parking boy around Vito Cruz and that on the day in question, while he was watching a vehicle close [McDonald's], Vito Cruz branch, a commotion happened close his mail. As he moved backward from where he stood, he was suddenly approached by a policeman who arrested him and boarded him inside a vehicle together with CERVANTES and REQUIZ, whom he did not know prior to that incident. For his part, accused REQUIZ testified that on the date and time in question, he was riding a borrowed bicycle on his method to the Cultural Center, passing by Polybags, when he bumped a parked van, wherefrom a man alighted and cursed him, saying " pulis ako wag kang aalis dyan[!] " The man left and when he returned, accused CERVANTES was with him. Thereafter, he was boarded into the van together with the other accused. [5] While not stated in the CA decision, Del Monte testified, like accused-appellant, that he was taken to a cemetery somewhere in Cavite where the arresting officers lingered for an hour before bringing him to Camp Vicente Lim. [6] These testimonies remained uncontroverted. Arguson died amid the course of the trial resulting in the dismissal of the case against him. [7] On April 23, 2004, the RTC rendered judgment acquitting Del Monte and Requiz nevertheless finding accused-appellant guilty as charged and meting upon her the penalty of reclusion perpetua . The fallo of the RTC Decision reads: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered: Finding accused MONALYN CERVANTES Y SOLAR GUILTY beyond efficient doubt of violation of Sec. 15, Article III, of Republic Act No. 6425 as amended, and is sentenced to Reclusion Perpetua and to pay a fine in the amount of Php500,000.00; and Finding the prosecution's evidence insufficient to demonstrate the guilt of accused WILSON DEL MONTE and RICHARD REQUIZ beyond efficient doubt, and who are hereby ACQUITTED. SO ORDERED. [8] On May 18, 2004, accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal, pursuant to which the RTC forwarded the records of the case to this Court. Conformably with People v. Mateo , [9] the Court directed the transport of the case to the CA where it was docketed as Polybags, accused-appellant urged her acquittal on the ground of "insufficiency of evidence," particularly stating that the "forensic chemist who in reality conducted the laboratory examination on the specimens allegedly recovered from the accused was not presented in court x [and] so, there was no transparent identification of the contents of the confiscated sachets." [10] By its Decision [11] dated July 19, 2007, the CA, finding the elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs [12] to have sufficiently been pleased and the identification of accused-appellant having been established, affirmed her conviction. The CA rejected accused-appellant's lament about one Inspectour Tria testifying on the chemistry report she did not prepare. As the appellate court stressed, C/I Geronimo's forensic report "carries the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions [and] the entries thereon x are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated." The CA added the observation that absent any evidence overturning the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions, the probative value and admissibility of the forensic report prepared by C/I Geronimo, who had resigned from the service, must be upheld even if she did not personally testify in court. On August 17, 2007, accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal of the CA affirmatory decision. On March 24, 2008, this Court required the parties to submit supplemental briefs if they so desired. The parties manifested their willingness to submit the case on the basis of the records already submitted, so veritably reiterating their principal arguments raised in the CA, which on the part of accused-appellant would be: THE [CA] GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED DESPITE THE INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION. For its part, the People, thru the Office of the Solicitour General, counters that the prosecution has established that the buy-bust transaction took place, has identified accused-appellant and her complicity in Arguson's illegal trade, and has presented the corpus delicti , as evidence. The Court's Ruling After a circumspect study, the Court resolves to acquit accused-appellant, considering certain circumstances engendering efficient doubt as to her guilt. We beginning off with the most basic, the testimony of the prosecution's principal see, PO3 Ramos, who identified accused-appellant and described her role in the conspiracy to sell shabu . In the see box, PO3 testified that, after being told by Arguson to wait for someone who will come out from the street so Arguson would enter, accused-appellant emerged from said street, checked on the purchase money, asked the operatives to wait, and later re-appeared. What happened next is captured by the following answers of PO3 Ramos to the prosecutour's questions: Q: What did you see when Cervantes already returned? A : When Monalyn return the one holding the plastic bag was Wilson, sir. Q: Wilson? A : Yes, sir, together with Richard, Wilson, Arguson, they were four (4). Atty. Cruz: Your honour, may we transport to strike that out x. Fiscal Formoso: That's part of the reply x now, when all these accused here return with Monalyn Cervantes, what happen[ed]? A: Arguson took the plastic bag from Wilson, sir and handed it to Balosbalos, Balosbalos gave Arguson the boodle money while I flash the signal x then we apprehended them. [13] As may be noted, PO3 Ramos categorically stated that Del Monte was among the four who emerged with Arguson from a street. Without hesitation, PO3 Ramos pointed to Del Monte as the one holding the plastic bag allegedly containing the prohibited substance until Arguson took it from him and handed it above to PO2 Balosbalos. There is no recommendation that accused-appellant, while at the crime scene, ever handled the merchandise or its container. Yet, the trial court acquitted Requiz and Del Monte, nevertheless convicted accused-appellant, stating: "Clearly, accused Monalyn Cervantes' complicity with accused Isidro Arguson in the sale of shabu has been established by the testimony of PO3 Ramos." [14] But two paragraphs later, the RTC went on to write: x While PO3 Ramos testified that the bag was initially held by accused Del Monte and then taken from him by accused Arguson, there is no other evidence which can assist the charge of conspiracy with Arguson and Cervantes x. The court does not come by the evidence sufficient to pass the test of proper certainty to come by accused Del Monte liable as charged. Even if PO3 Ramos saw him to have held the bag for Arguson, it could have been potential that he was merely asked by Cervantes or Arguson to transport the bag. [15] Before us then is a situation where two persons-- accused-appellant , a laundry woman; and Del Monte , a car park boy, in the company of the ostensible pusher, Arguson, amid the proper buy bust--are being indicted, on the basis alone of the testimony of a see, with confederating with each and several the rest to sell shabu . The overt acts performed by accused-appellant, as indicia of conspiracy, consisted of allegedly verifying whether the poseur-buyer still had the purchase money, disappearing from the scene and then coming back with the principal player. On the other hand, Del Monte came accompanying Arguson carrying the drug-containing plastic bag no less. As between the two acts performed, carrying the bag would relatively have the more serious implication being in itself a punishable act of possession of regulated drugs. Both offered the defenses of denial and instigation, each testifying that they only happened to be close or passing by McDonald's at about 4:30 in the afternoon of April 4, 2000 when they were apprehended. But the trial court, in its observation that "it could have been potential that [Del Monte] was merely asked by x Arguson to transport the bag," extended to Del Monte the "benefit of the doubt," a benevolence denied to accused-appellant without so much of an acceptable explanation. Any efficient mind might ask: Why the contrasting treatment? Why think PO3 Ramos as a highly credible eyewitness as against accused-appellant, nevertheless an unreliable one as against Del Monte, when both accused are perfect strangers to the policeman? To paraphrase an unyielding rule, if the inculpatory testimony is capable of two or more explanations, one consistent with the innocence of the accused persons and the other consistent with their guilt, then the evidence does not meet the test of proper certainty and is not sufficient to assist a conviction. [16] But even if we were to cast aside the foregoing equipoise rule, a reversal of the appealed decision is indicated on another nevertheless more convincing ground. We refer to the postulate that the prosecution, having failed to positively and convincingly demonstrate the identity of the seized regulated substance, is deemed to have also failed to demonstrate beyond efficient doubt accused-appellant's guilt. We shall tell. In all prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drug, what is crucial is the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and its consideration, the delivery of the thing sold, and the payment for it. Implicit in these cases is first and foremost the identity and existence, attached with the presentation to the court of the traded prohibited substance, this object evidence being an integral part of the corpus [17] delicti [18] of the crime of possession or selling of regulated/prohibited drug. [19] There can be no such crime when nagging doubts persist on whether the specimen submitted for examination and presented in court was what was recovered from, or sold by, the accused. [20] Essential, so, in appropriate cases is that the identity of the prohibited drug be established with proper certainty. This means that on top of the key elements of possession or sale, the fact that the substance illegally possessed and sold in the first place is the same substance offered in court as exhibit must likewise be established with the same degree of certitude as that needed to maintain a guilty verdict. And as we stressed in Malillin v. People , the "chain of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts about the identity of the evidence are removed." [21] So it is that in a slew of cases the Court has considered the prosecution's failure to adequately demonstrate that the specimen submitted for laboratory examination was the same one supposedly seized from the offending seller or possessour as ground for acquittal. [22] Sec. 1(b) of the Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, or the "Guidelines on the Custody and Disposition of Seized Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursours and Essential Chemicals, and Laboratory Equipment," defines "chain of custody," thusly: "Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorised movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals x from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and trademark of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transport of custody [was] manufactured in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the last disposition. [23] As a mode of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to assist a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. In context, this would ideally include testimony about all link in the chain, from the seizure of the prohibited drug up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a method that all who touched the exhibit would portray how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the see' possession, the condition in which it was received, and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. [24] The need for the punctilious observance of the chain-of-custody process in drug-related cases is explained in Malillin in the following wise: While testimony about a perfect chain is not frequently the normal because it is almost frequently impossible to acquire, an unbroken chain of custody becomes indispensable and necessary when the item of proper evidence is not distinctive and is not certainly identifiable , or when its condition at the time of testing or trial is critical, or when a see has failed to see its uniqueness. The same normal likewise acquires in case the evidence is susceptible to alteration, tampering, pollution and even substitution and exchange. In other words, the exhibit's level of susceptibility to fungibility, alteration or tampering--without regard to whether the same is advertent or otherwise not--dictates the level of strictness in the application of the chain of custody rule. x A unique property of narcotic substances is that they are not readily identifiable as as a matter of fact they are subject to scientific analysis to determine their composition and nature. The Court cannot reluctantly close its eyes to the likelihood, or at least the possibility, that at any of the links in the chain of custody above the same there could have been tampering, alteration or substitution of substances from other cases--by accident or otherwise--in which similar evidence was seized or in which similar evidence was submitted for laboratory testing. Hence, in authenticating the same, a normal more stringent than that applied to cases involving objects which are readily identifiable must be applied, a more exacting normal that entails a chain of custody of the item with sufficient completeness if only to render it improbable that the unique item has either been exchanged with another or been contaminated or tampered with. [25] (Emphasis added.) As the Court distinctly notes in this case, of the individuals who came into direct contact with or had physical custody of the seized regulated items, only PO3 Ramos testified for the specific purpose of identifying the evidence. In the see box, nevertheless, he did not indicate how he and his companions, proper after the buy bust, handled the seized plastic bag and its contents. He did not name the duty desk officer at Camp Vicente Lim to whom he particularly turned above the confiscated bag and sachets at least for recording. What is on record is Exhibit "C," which, as earlier described, is a memorandum [26] PO3 Ramos prepared [27] dated April 5, 2000 from the RSOG-IV Directour to the Chief, PNP R-IV Crime Laboratory Service, submitting for qualitative analysis the white crystalline substance confiscated by the buy-bust group. Needless to stress, the unnamed person who delivered the suspected shabu and the receiver of it at the laboratory were no-display in court to testify on the circumstances below which they handled the specimen or whether other persons had access to the specimen before proper testing. And C/I Geronimo, the analysing forensic chemist, was not also presented. Then, also, none testified on how the specimen was cared after following the chemical analysis. As the Court observed aptly in People v. Ong , "[T]hese questions should be answered satisfactorily to determine whether the integrity of the evidence was compromised in any method. Otherwise, the prosecution cannot maintain that it was able to demonstrate the guilt of appellants beyond efficient doubt." [28] It cannot be overemphasised that Inspectour Tria was certainly not part of the custodial chain. And she did not as she could not, even if she wanted to, testify on whether or not the specimen turned above for analysis and eventually offered in court as exhibit was the same substance received from Arguson. Given the foregoing perspective, it is fairly evident that the police operatives trifled with the methods in the custody of seized prohibited drugs in a buy-bust operation, as embodied in Sec. 21(1), Art. II of RA 9165, Polybags, the apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drug shall : immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the [drug] in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. [29] In this case, no physical inventory was manufactured and no photograph taken nor markings manufactured on the seized articles at the crime scene. PO3 Ramos admitted as much, so: Q. Now, you were able to arrest all the accused here, after their arrest, what did you transport out? A. After informing their rights and the reason why we arrest them we brought them immediately to our office in Canlubang. x Q. Now, what about this Shabu, who was in possession of this Shabu x when you left the place and proceeded to Canlubang? A . PO2 Balosbalos, sir. x Q. Now, when you reach your office, what did you do there? A . I manufactured the booking sheet and I requested for their medical/physical examination x. [30] Just as transparent is the fact that the exacting chain of custody rule was not observed. Withal, there is no efficient assurance that no tampering or substitution occurred between the time the police seized the black bag in P. Ocampo St. in Manila until its contents were tested in the laboratory of the PNP R-IV headquarters in Canlubang, Laguna. In net effect, a heavy cloud of doubt hangs above the integrity and necessarily the evidentiary value of the seized items. The prosecution cannot, so, rightfully assert that the six sachets seized from Arguson were the very same objects tested by C/I Geronimo and offered in court in proving the corpus delicti . Adding a negative dimension to the prosecution's case is the non-presentation of C/I Geronimo and the presentation in her stead of Inspectour Tria to testify on the chemical report C/I Geronimo prepared. While Inspectour Tria can plausibly testify on the fact that C/I Geronimo prepared the chemical report in the normal course of her duties, she, Inspectour Tria, was incompetent to state that the specimen her former colleague analysed was as a matter of fact shabu and was the same specimen delivered to the laboratory for chemical analysis. To be sure, the Court, particularly in People v. Bandang , has held that the non-presentation of the forensic chemist in illegal drug cases is an insufficient cause for acquittal. In it, the accused persons were convicted of illegal sale of shabu even if the forensic chemist who prepared the corresponding laboratory report was not presented. Thus, we wrote: x In People vs. Uy, we ruled that a forensic chemist is a public officer and as such, his report carries the presumption of regularity in the performance of his function and duties. Corollarily, below Section 44 of Rule 130, x entries in official records manufactured in the performance of official duty are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. Omero's reports that the seven sachets of white crystalline substance were "positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride " or shabu are, so, convincing in the absence of evidence proving the contrary, as in this case. Second, it must be stressed that Atty. Enriquez raises his objection to the Initial Laboratory Report and Chemistry Report No. D-1585-00 only now . He should have objected to their admissibility at the time they were being offered. Otherwise, the objection shall be considered waived and such evidence will form part of the records of the case as competent and admissible evidence. The familiar rule in this jurisdiction is that the admissibility of certain documents x cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. [31] (Emphasis added.) It should be pointed out, nevertheless, that the Bandang ruling was cast against a alternative backdrop where: (1) the seized crystalline substance was the same item examined and tested positive for shabu and presented in court, implying that the identity and integrity of prohibited drug was safeguarded throughout, a circumstance not obtaining in this case; (2) there was a convincing reason for not presenting the examining forensic chemist, Polybags, the parties stipulated that the confiscated seven plastic bags have been identified and examined and that the chemist stated in his report that the substance is positive for shabu . In this case, C/I Geronimo's resignation from the service is not, standing alone, a justifying factour for the prosecution to dispense with her testimony; and (3) accused Bandang, et al. did not raise any objection to the chemical report amid trial, unlike here where accused-appellant objected to Inspectour Tria's competency to testify on the Geronimo chemical report. At any rate, Inspectour Tria's testimony on, and the presentation of, the chemistry report in question only established, at optimal, the existence, due execution, and authenticity of the results of the chemistry analysis. [32] It does not demonstrate compliance with the requisite chain of custody above the confiscated substance from the time of seizure of the evidence. In this regard, the Court in effect stated in Malillin that unless the state can display by records or testimony that the integrity of the evidence has not been compromised by recording for the continuous whereabouts of the object evidence at least between the time it came into the possession of the police officers until it was tested in the laboratory, [33] then the prosecution cannot maintain that it was able to demonstrate the guilt of the accused beyond efficient doubt. So it was that in People v. Kimura the Court said that in establishing the corpus delicti , proof beyond efficient doubt requirements that "unwavering exactitude" [34] be observed, a demand which may be addressed by hewing to the chain-of-custody rule. Evidently, the prosecution has not proved that the substance seized in front of the McDonald's was the same substance adduced in evidence as an indispensable element of corpus delicti of the crime, which failure manufactures a serious doubt as to accused-appellant's guilt. [35] Both the trial and appellate courts manufactured much of the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions both about the acts of PO3 Ramos and other PNP personnel at Camp Vicente Lim. To a point, the reliance on the presumptive regularity is tenable. This presumption is, nevertheless, disputable and may be overturned by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty; [36] any taint of irregularity vitiates the performance and negates the presumption. And as earlier mentioned, the buy bust team committed serious lapses in the handling of the prohibited item from the very beginning of its operation, the errour of which the PNP R-IV command later compounded. The Court need not belabour this matter anew. Lest it be overlooked, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty frequently yields to the presumption of innocence and does not constitute proof beyond efficient doubt. [37] We held in one case: The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot be used as basis for affirming accused-appellant's conviction because, "[f]irst, the presumption is precisely only that--a mere presumption. Once challenged by evidence, as in this case, x [it] cannot be regarded as binding truth. Second, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions cannot preponderate above the presumption of innocence that prevails if not overthrown by proof beyond efficient doubt." [38] For failure then of the prosecution to establish the guilt of accused-appellant beyond efficient doubt, she must perforce be exonerated from criminal liability. The facts and the law of the case call for this kind of disposition. But a last consideration. The Court is cognizant of the campaign of the police and other drug enforcement agencies against the growing drug menace in the country. Unfortunately, their optimal efforts, particularly successful honest-to-goodness buy-bust operations, sometimes still stop up in the acquittal of illegal drug manufacturers, distributours, pushers and/or lesser players, even when nabbed in flagrante , simply because drug enforcement operatives tend to compromise the integrity and evidentiary worth of the seized illegal items. This aberration is oftentimes in turn attributable to the unfamiliarity of police operatives of extant rules and methods governing the custody, control, and handling of seized drugs. This is, so, an opportune time to remind all concerned about these rules and methods and the guiding jurisprudence. And to put things in the proper perspective, non-compliance with the legal prescriptions of the Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended, is, as we manufactured abundantly transparent in People v. Sanchez , not necessarily fatal to the prosecution of drug-related cases; that police methods may still have a few lapses. These lapses, nevertheless, must be recognised, addressed, and explained in terms of their justifiable grounds, and the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized must be shown to have been preserved by the apprehending officer or team. To be forewarned is to be forearmed. WHEREFORE , the CA Decision dated July 19, 2007 in Polybags, affirming that of the RTC, Branch 53 in Manila which found her guilty of violating Sec. 15, Art. III of RA 6425 and imposed upon her the penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of PhP 500,000, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE . Accused-appellant Monalyn Cervantes y Solar is ACQUITTED on the ground of efficient doubt and is so immediately RELEASED from custody unless she is being lawfully held for a few legal cause. The Directour of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to implement this Decision and to report to this Court the action taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision. SO ORDERED. Quisumbing, (Chairperson), Carpio Morales, Tinga, and Brion JJ., concur. [1] Rollo , pp. 6-7. [2] Id. at 5. [3] The McDonald's branch in P. Ocampo St. was later determined to be in Manila. [4] Records, pp. our telephone [5] Rollo , pp. 7-8. [6] TSN, January 20, 2003, pp. 10-11. [7] Rollo , p. 8. [8] CA rollo , p. 30. Penned by Judge Reynaldo A. Alhambra. [9] Polybags, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640. [10] CA rollo , pp. 81-82. [11] Rollo , pp. 4-10. Penned by Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe and concurred in by Associate Justices Vicente Q. Roxas and Lucas P. Bersamin. [12] (a) identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefour. [13] TSN, October 23, 2001, pp. 12-16. [14] CA rollo , p. 28. [15] Id. at 28-29. [16] People v. Navarro , Polybags, October 11, 2007, 535 SCRA 644, 653. [17] A Latin word which signifies "body." [18] Literally body of the crime; in the legal sense, corpus delicti as referring to the fact of the commission of the crime charged or to the substance of the crime; it does not refer to the proper physical evidence, like ransom money in the crime of kidnapping for ransom, the cadaver of the person murdered, or the confiscated cases of blue seal cigarettes in the crime of smuggling. See Rimorin, Sr. v. People , Polybags, April 30, 2003, 402 SCRA 393, 400. [19] People v. Sanchez , Polybags, October 10, 2008; citing Valdez v. People , Polybags, November 23, 2007, 538 SCRA 611. [20] Valdez , supra note 19, at our telephone ; citing People v. Ong , Polybags, June 21, 2004, 432 SCRA 470. [21] Polybags, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619, 632; citing British jurisprudence. [22] Valdez , supra; Ong , supra note 20. [23] In accordance with Sec. 21, Art. II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 in relation to Sec. 81(b), Art. IX of RA 9165. [24] Malillin , supra note 21. [25] Id. at our telephone [26] Records, p. 33. [27] TSN, October 23, 2001, p. 20. [28] Supra note 20, at 490. [29] The IRR of RA 9165 provides further, " non-compliance with these requirements below justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render null and invalid such seizures of and custody above said items ." [30] TSN, October 23, 2001, pp. 18-19. [31] Polybags, June 3, 2004, 430 SCRA 570, our telephone [32] Sanchez , supra note 19. [33] Supra note 21, at 634. [34] Polybags, April 27, 2004, 428 SCRA 51, 70. [35] Id. [36] Sevilla v. Cardenas , Polybags, July 31, 2006, 497 SCRA 428, 443; citing Mabsucang v. Judge Balgos , 446 Phil. 217, our telephone . [37] People v. Caete , Polybags, July 11, 2002, 384 SCRA 411, 424. [38] People v. Tan , Polybags, May 29, 2002, 382 SCRA 419, 444.

Hot promotions in 5000pcs transparent self seal bags on aliexpress:

Great newsYou're in the proper place for 5000pcs transparent self seal bags. By now you already know that, whatever you are looking for, you're sure to come by it on AliExpress. We in reality have thousands of big products in all product types. Whether you're looking for high-stop labels or cost-effective, economy bulk purchases, we guarantee that it's here on AliExpress.

Grip Seal Plastic Bags Small Medium Large packaging supplierble Self Plain Clear All Sizes

Grip Seal Plastic Bags Small Medium Large packaging supplierble Self Plain Clear All Sizes. All bags are rectangular with a grip seal on the shorter side. Slide your fingers along the grip seal to close. Colour: Clear. Manufactured from transparent polythene suppliers. Suitable for use with food. If you are unsure about the size of the bags, we encourage you.. Condition:: New: A emblem-new, unused, unopened and undamaged item in unique shopping packaging (where packaging is applicable). If the item comes direct from a manufacturer, it may be delivered in non-shopping packaging, like a plain or unprinted box or plastic bag. See the seller's listing for full details. See all condition definitions : Colour: : Clear , Brand: : Suregrip and the rest: Material: : polythene suppliers / Plastic , Seal: : Press & Seal Grip Bags: Style: : Plain , MPN: : Does Not Apply: Also Known As: : Zip Lock Bags, ZipLoc Bag, Zip Bags, SureGrip Bags , Country/Region of Manufacture: : United Kingdom , ?

packaging suppliers's Choice for "freezer bags" 100 Write On Panel 6" X 9" Large Grip Seal Bags Clear Plastic packaging supplierble Bags Reusable Strong Zip Lock Bags polythene suppliers Packaging Ziplock Pouches for Food, Jewellery, Sweets, Candy Storage. 4.5 out of 5 stars 242.

This tin contained 11 small self-seal bags with a mix of white powder and tablets inside.

Gels (5 ? 3 ? 0?5 cm) containing 7?5 % (w/v) polyacrylamide and 0?1 % (w/v) locust bean gum (LBG) were prepared in 0?1 m citric acid/0?2 m disodium phosphate buffer (pH 6?2). PE envelopes were isolated from decoated muskmelon seeds soaked in distilled water for 3 h at 25 ?C in the darkness. One of the two halves of each PE envelope was placed with its inner surface on the gel, whereas the other one was placed with its outer surface on the gel opposite to the former. After incubation at 25 ?C in the dark for 12 h in water vapour-saturated, self-sealing polythene suppliers bags, the halves of the PE envelopes were removed and the gels were immediately stained as described below.

Darice 1115 23 50 Pack Plastic Self Sealing Bags 4 3 4 By 5 3 4 Inch Clear

Darice 1115 23 50 Pack Plastic Self Sealing Bags 4 3 4 By 5 3 4 Inch Clear is normally the most popular all brought out this few days. Given that pushing it is unrivaled view, changed furthermore at this point accommodated no higher than on your possess. Then on the internet a wide selection of products it's feasible acquire. This totally products and services is built through the use of specific things that will for a few reason have wonderful as well as vogue. Darice 1115 23 50 Pack Plastic Self Sealing Bags 4 3 4 By 5 3 4 Inch Clear is certainly a preferent opt for a number of us. Along with I MERELY passionately recommend the item. Using the outside first-rate touchstones, so realising the product a few sort of posh as well as for instance resilient. While plenty persons like currently the Darice 1115 23 50 Pack Plastic Self Sealing Bags 4 3 4 By 5 3 4 Inch Clear while a lot of models about colourings, figures, resources.

Bag, Plastic Bag, Food Packaging manufacturer / supplier in United Kingdom, offering Heavy Duty Grip Seal Bags, Clear Grip Seal Bags with 3 Write-on-Panels, Cheap Disposable Powder Free Latex Gloves in United Kingdom, Gift Jewel Design Watch Storage Pine Display Tissue Red Wine Wooden Box and so on.

The mail 500 x Plain Grip Seal Bags – 15 x 20 Inches appeared first on Packaging Now .

Research & Resources

To find out more about grip seal bags, including how they are produced and the different range of grip seal bags available, please visit the following websites:

Goldstork: A free best-of-the-web directory featuring hand-picked information about and specialist websites on grip seal bags.

PackagingKnowledge: This in-depth polythene packaging website features plenty of useful information about grip seal bags.

PlasticBags.uk.com: Free online polythene packaging directory. Submit product listings or browse for useful articles on grip seal bags websites.

Grip seal bag types

In its simplest form, a grip seal bag is a polythene bag used for storage and/or to keep contents dry and clean. However, a range of different types of grip seal bag are available, all of which offers these standard benefits, but each of which serves a slightly different and specific purpose.

These include the following:

Grip seal bags with labels - An exterior label, usually white, allows you to write the contents of the bag on the label to help with identification and provide a visual aide for filing purposes

Black grip seal bags - Regular grip seal bags but made from opaque black polythene, providing confidentiality of contents and an extra level of security

Coloured grip seal bags - Gripper bags made from different coloured polythene. Ideally bought in a set to provide simple colour-categorisation of contents when filing, making it easier to find items later

Extra tough grip seal bags - Heavy duty bags made from thicker, tougher, polythene than regular gripper bags. Ideal for sharp, pointy, heavy, jagged or awkwardly-shaped items, as more resistant to puncturing, tearing or ripping

Grip seal carrier bags - A shopping bag with a difference, as it features a grip seal along the top for added protection against the elements and a more professional look

Anti-static grip seal bags - Used to transport electrical components safely as they protect them from potential build-up of static electricity, which can cause damage to some items.