FACTS:

The accused-appellant, Norjana Sood y Amatondin, was charged with violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 for unlawfully selling 5.85 grams of shabu. The prosecution's version of events stated that she was arrested in a buy-bust operation after handing over two plastic sachets containing shabu. Accused-appellant, however, denied the prosecution's version and claimed that she was a sidewalk vendor who was apprehended by men demanding money. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found her guilty despite non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165, but excused the lapses. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's conviction, also noting non-compliance with Section 21 but considering it as substantial compliance.

In another case involving the accused-appellant, it was found that the buy-bust team failed to comply with the mandatory procedure under Section 21 of RA 9165, which requires the inventory and photographing of seized drugs in the presence of the accused or their representative, media representatives, and elected public officials. Despite these deficiencies, the court deemed that there was substantial compliance with the law, and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but acknowledged the noncompliance with Section 21.

In a third case, the accused-appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence alleging illegal arrest and search and seizure of drugs. The RTC denied the motion and convicted the accused-appellant based on the testimonies of the police officers involved. During the trial, compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165 was questioned, particularly the presence of three witnesses during the inventory and photographing of the seized drugs. Lapses in compliance were admitted by one of the police officers, but the RTC justified them based on explanations provided by the police officers. The accused-appellant was ultimately convicted despite the mentioned lapses in compliance with the law.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the prosecution failed to prove the presence of witnesses during the inventory and photographing of the seized drugs.

2. Whether the conduct of the inventory and photographing at the barangay hall instead of at the place of arrest violated the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165.

3. Whether the failure of the buy-bust team to comply with the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165 affects the admissibility of the seized drugs as evidence.

4. Whether or not a valid buy-bust operation took place.

5. Whether or not the prosecution complied with the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165 regarding the presence of three witnesses and the conduct of the inventory and photographing of seized drugs.

6. Whether the chain of custody of the seized drugs was duly established.

7. Whether the prosecution had proven compliance with the procedure set forth in Section 21 of RA 9165.

8. Whether or not the prosecution complied with the mandatory procedure outlined in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.

9. Whether or not the deviations from the mandatory procedure can be justified.

RULING:

1. The prosecution failed to prove the presence of the three required witnesses during the inventory and photographing of the seized drugs. Only the barangay official and media representative were present during the inventory, and they were called in only after the arrest and seizure had already happened.

2. The conduct of the inventory and photographing at the barangay hall instead of at the place of arrest violated the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165. The plain import of Section 21 is that the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items should be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation, in the presence of the accused, his counsel or representative, a representative of the DOJ, the media, and an elected public official. Only if this is not practicable can the inventory and photographing be done as soon as the buy-bust team reaches the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team.

3. The failure of the buy-bust team to comply with the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165 affects the admissibility of the seized drugs as evidence. The Court cannot rely on the testimonies of the police officers on the conduct of the inventory and photographing, given their contradictory versions and lack of proof of the presence of witnesses.

4. The Court finds that no valid buy-bust operation took place based on the failure of the prosecution to comply with the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165 and the contradictory testimonies of the members of the buy-bust team.

5. The prosecution failed to comply with the requirements of Section 21 as they did not bring the required three witnesses from the media, the DOJ, and any elected public official, and they conducted the inventory and photographing of the seized drugs at the police station instead of at the place of seizure. The prosecution's reasons for their non-compliance were not sufficient justifications. Therefore, the seizure of and custody over the seized drugs are deemed void and invalid.

6. The court held that there were serious gaps in the chain of custody of the seized drugs, which created reasonable doubt as to its identity and integrity. There were inconsistencies in the testimonies of the buy-bust team members regarding the handling and safekeeping of the seized drugs. Moreover, there was no testimony on the retrieval of the drugs from the laboratory for presentation in court as evidence. Hence, the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody.

7. Compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 must be proven in a prosecution under the said law. The presumption of regularity in the performance of police officers' duty cannot cover for non-compliance with the procedure. The court emphasized that prosecutors have a positive duty to not only acknowledge but also justify any perceived deviations from the procedure during the trial. In this case, the prosecution failed to prove compliance with the requirements of Section 21, thus, the presumption of regularity cannot be applied.

8. The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to comply with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 and could not justify the deviations from it. As a result, the accused-appellant's constitutional right to be presumed innocent stands. The Court granted the appeal, set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, and acquitted the accused-appellant. The accused-appellant was ordered to be immediately released from detention, unless she is confined for any other lawful cause.

PRINCIPLES:

• The presence of three witnesses during the inventory and photographing of seized drugs is required to protect against the planting of evidence.

• Failure to comply with the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165 renders the seizure and custody of seized drugs void and invalid, unless there are justifiable grounds for the non-compliance and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.

• The integrity and evidentiary value of seized items are properly preserved if the chain of custody is duly established.

• To render it improbable that the original item has been tampered with, a more exacting standard for authenticating narcotic substances is required compared to other object evidence.

• Compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 is determinative of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs and should be proven in a prosecution under the said law.

• The presumption of regularity in the performance of police officers' duty cannot cover for non-compliance with the mandated procedure under Section 21 of RA 9165.

• The Constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent.

• Compliance with the mandatory procedure outlined in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 is required for the admissibility of evidence.

• The prosecution has the burden of proving compliance with the mandatory procedure or justifying any deviations from it.