FACTS:

Isidro Ramos y Bondoc (Ramos) was charged with violating Article II, Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. In the first case, he was charged with possession of seventeen heat-sealed plastic sachets containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, and in the second case, he was charged with selling, distributing, and transporting a heat-sealed plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride.

The prosecution presented police officers as witnesses during the trial. They testified that a confidential informant reported the drug activities of a known drug pusher named "Billy." The police officers planned a buy-bust operation, and after the transaction, they approached Billy, identified themselves as police officers, and confiscated seventeen heat-sealed sachets of a white crystalline substance from Billy's pocket, along with the marked money. The seized items were not immediately marked.

At the police station, the seized items were marked by the poseur-buyer with his initials for the sachet he bought from Ramos and with other initials for the other seventeen sachets. A Confiscation Receipt was issued and signed by the parties involved.

During cross-examination, there were inconsistencies in the testimonies regarding the marking of the seized items. One witness claimed that the items were not marked before signing the Confiscation Receipt, while another witness stated that the items were put in plastic containers before being marked.

On another case, Isidro Ramos was charged with selling 18 sachets of marijuana. PO2 Navarro posed as the buyer while PO3 Yco acted as the backup. After the transaction, the officers arrested Ramos and seized 17 sachets of marijuana from him. PO2 Navarro testified that he prepared the buy-bust team before the operation, and PO2 Navarro and PO3 Yco witnessed the marking of the seized items at the police station.

During cross-examination, PO2 Navarro admitted that he did not put the packets of marijuana in separate plastic containers before marking them.

The defense presented Ramos and his two nephews as witnesses. Ramos denied the accusations and claimed that he had been framed. He alleged that the police officers entered his house without permission, searched his body, and took his belongings. Ramos further claimed that he did not understand English well, did not read the Confiscation Receipt, and was not explained its contents.

The trial court found Ramos guilty based on the prosecution's evidence and testimonies. The court accepted the testimonies of the police officers and ruled that the seized drugs' integrity and evidentiary value had been preserved. The court also discounted the defense's testimonies, considering them biased since two witnesses were Ramos' relatives. Ramos was sentenced to imprisonment and imposed a fine.

Erwin Ramos was also charged with violating the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine. He appealed his case, arguing that there were gaps in the chain of custody of the seized items, including a failure to immediately mark the items, establish how they were received and brought to the crime laboratory, and provide information about the recipient or custodian of the seized items.

ISSUES:

1. Whether there were gaps in the chain of custody that put the seized items' integrity in doubt.

2. Whether there were inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses' testimonies.

3. Whether the non-immediate marking of the seized drugs is a justifiable ground for noncompliance with the rules on custody.

4. Whether the absence of the required witnesses at the time of seizure is a valid justification for not immediately marking the seized items.

5. Whether or not the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

6. Whether or not the drugs seized from the accused were properly handled and preserved.

RULING:

1. The accused is acquitted because the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of violating the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. The prosecution was unable to show that the apprehending team followed the requirements on the custody of the seized drugs, particularly the immediate marking, physical inventory, and photographing in the presence of witnesses as mandated by Section 21 of R.A. 9165. The failure of the prosecution to prove the chain of custody creates doubt as to the integrity of the seized items and, therefore, the guilt of the accused.

2. The Court did not explicitly rule on the inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses' testimonies, as the acquittal was based on the failure to prove the chain of custody.

3. The non-immediate marking of the seized drugs is not a justifiable ground for noncompliance with the rules on custody. Strict compliance with the requirements under Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act may not always be possible under varied field conditions. However, for noncompliance to be justified, the prosecution must satisfactorily prove that there is a justifiable ground and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. In this case, the police officers' reasons for not immediately marking the items, lack of pens and absence of witnesses, are not sufficient justifications.

4. The absence of the required witnesses at the time of seizure is not a valid justification for not immediately marking the seized items. The law requires the apprehending team to conduct the inventory in front of the required witnesses and immediately after seizure, which means the witnesses must be present at the time of seizure in buy-bust operations. The purpose of their presence is to protect against planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drugs. Therefore, their absence cannot serve as a valid justification for noncompliance with the marking requirement.

5. The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and acquitted the accused for the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found that there are doubts as to the source, identity, and integrity of the drugs allegedly seized from the accused. The testimonies of the police officers presented inconsistencies regarding the handling and marking of the seized drugs. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that in cases involving buy-bust operations, where small amounts of drugs are seized, a higher level of scrutiny must be applied to the credibility of the prosecution's evidence.

PRINCIPLES:

• Every person criminally charged is presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and failure to meet this burden results in the accused's acquittal.

• To convict someone for illegal possession and sale of drugs, the prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that dangerous drugs were seized and that the drugs examined and presented in court were the very ones seized. The prosecution must strictly follow the requirements on the custody of seized drugs, including the immediate marking, physical inventory, and photographing in the presence of witnesses.

• The immediate marking, physical inventory, and photographing of seized items must be done at the place of apprehension unless impracticable, in which case it may be done at the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team.

• Strict compliance with the requirements under Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act may not always be possible, but there must be justifiable grounds for noncompliance and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items must be properly preserved.

• The presence of required witnesses at the time of seizure and confiscation is mandatory to prevent planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drugs.

• The presence of the three witnesses must be secured not only during the inventory but also at the time of the warrantless arrest to ensure the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug.

• Lack of foresight by the apprehending team in not bringing the required witnesses or markers is not an excuse for noncompliance with the chain of custody rule.

• The markings on the seized items must be done as soon as practicable after seizure and confiscation.

• In criminal cases, the prosecution has the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

• The handling and preservation of seized drugs are crucial in ensuring the integrity and admissibility of the evidence.

• In cases involving buy-bust operations, a higher level of scrutiny must be applied to the credibility of the prosecution's evidence, especially when small amounts of drugs are seized.