FACTS:

The case involves accused-appellant Narvas who was charged with the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. The prosecution presented evidence indicating that Narvas sold and possessed methamphetamine hydrochloride during a buy-bust operation. However, Narvas claimed that he was falsely arrested and framed, alleging that he was beaten, tortured, and forced to admit to the crime. The trial court convicted Narvas based on the testimonies of the arresting officers and the confiscated drugs. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

In another set of facts, Narvas was charged with illegal possession of drugs. It was established that a buy-bust operation was conducted by the police, resulting in Narvas' arrest and the seizure of plastic sachets containing shabu. However, serious breaches of the mandatory procedures required in buy-bust operations were revealed. The inventory and photographing of the seized drugs were not done immediately after the apprehension, as required by law. Furthermore, no legitimate inventory was conducted at the scene of the crime and at the police station. The alleged photographs of the seized drugs were also not found. These breaches raised doubt on the integrity of the confiscated drug specimens and as to the guilt of the accused-appellant.

ISSUES:

1. Whether a legitimate inventory of the seized drug specimens was conducted.

2. Whether photographs of the evidence were taken as required by law.

3. Whether the presence of elected public officials during the buy-bust operation was sufficient compliance with the law.

4. Whether the marking of the evidence was irregular.

5. Whether the procedural requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165 were complied with.

6. Whether the chain of custody of the alleged seized illegal drugs was maintained.

7. Whether the prosecution failed to establish the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs due to the deviation from the procedures outlined in Section 21 of RA 9165.

8. Whether the accused should be acquitted due to the compromised integrity of the evidence.

9. Whether the prosecution has proven compliance with the provisions of Section 21 of RA 9165.

10. Whether the accused is entitled to acquittal based on reasonable doubt.

RULING:

1. The court found that there was no legitimate inventory conducted both at the scene of the crime and at the police station, based on the prosecution's evidence.

2. The court observed that there were no photographs taken of the alleged buy-bust operation and inventory conducted by the police, as required by Section 21 of RA 9165.

3. The court found that even if elected public officials were present during the buy-bust operation, their presence alone did not sufficiently comply with the requirement for the presence of a representative from the media and a representative from the DOJ.

4. The court found that the marking of the evidence, which only included the initials of the apprehending officers without indicating the date, time, and place of confiscation, was highly irregular.

5. The Court held that the procedural requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165 were not complied with, and the chain of custody of the alleged seized illegal drugs was not maintained. The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of the procedural requirements and the importance of safeguarding the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of evidence. The Court also emphasized that the presence of witnesses from the DOJ, media, and public elective office during the seizure and marking of drugs is necessary to protect against planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drugs. The Court further ruled that the practice of not bringing the witnesses to the intended place of arrest and only calling them in after the buy-bust operation has finished does not achieve the purpose of the law in preventing or insulating against the planting of drugs. The Court concluded that the lapses and irregularities committed by the buy-bust team in this case were not mere "minor matters" and that the chain of custody of the alleged seized illegal drugs was broken.

6. The prosecution failed to recognize and justify the deviation from the procedures outlined in Section 21 of RA 9165. The breach of procedure by the police officers and the failure of the prosecution to explain these lapses undermine the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs.

7. The accused should be acquitted due to the compromised integrity of the evidence.

8. The Court exhorts the prosecutors to diligently prove compliance with the provisions of Section 21 of RA 9165, as it is fundamental in preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti. If deviations from the prescribed procedure are observed and no justifiable reasons are provided, the conviction must be overturned, and the innocence of the accused affirmed.

9. In this case, the appeal is granted, and the accused is acquitted of the crimes charged on the ground of reasonable doubt.

PRINCIPLES:

• A legitimate inventory of seized items must be conducted both at the scene of the crime and at the police station.

• Photographs of the evidence must be taken immediately after or at the place of apprehension during a buy-bust operation.

• The presence of elected public officials during a buy-bust operation does not replace the requirement for the presence of a representative from the media and a representative from the DOJ.

• Proper marking of evidence includes indicating the initials of the apprehending officer/evidence custodian, as well as the date, time, and place of confiscation.

• The procedural requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165 are mandatory and serve the purpose of safeguarding the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of evidence.

• The presence of witnesses from the DOJ, media, and public elective office at the time of seizure and confiscation of drugs is necessary to prevent planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drugs.

• The presence of witnesses at the time of seizure and confiscation of drugs must be secured and complied with at the time of the warrantless arrest.

• The burden of proof in cases involving dangerous drugs lies with the prosecution to prove compliance with the procedure outlined in Section 21 of RA 9165.

• The presumption of innocence of the accused remains until the prosecution has discharged its burden of proof and proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

• The presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is a much stronger and firmer presumption than the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty by law enforcement officers.

• The non-compliance of the requirements in Section 21 of RA 9165 does not automatically render the seizures and custody of the seized items void and invalid. However, the prosecution must recognize and justify any lapses or deviations from the procedures.

• The failure of the prosecution to establish the earnest efforts employed in contacting the required witnesses under Section 21(1) of RA 9165, or to provide justifiable grounds for failing to do so, compromises the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence.

• The courts and law enforcement agencies must exercise extra vigilance in drug cases to avoid injustices and should promptly investigate instances of non-compliance with the law in order to protect the rights of the accused.

• The procedure outlined in Section 21 of RA 9165 is straightforward and easy to comply with, and compliance is integral to every conviction.

• Compliance with Section 21 must be proven by the prosecution, and any deviations from the prescribed procedure must be explained through available evidence.

• The right to due process should not be sacrificed for the sake of convenience and expediency, as it is a sacred and indelible right enshrined under the Constitution.