View full case

PEOPLE v. HARON RAMOS Y ROMINIMBANG

FACTS:

The accused-appellant Haron Ramos was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The prosecution's version of events stated that a buy-bust operation was planned, which involved a certain "Haron" suspected of selling illegal drugs. During the operation, the buy-bust team familiarized themselves with the meeting place and awaited Ramos' arrival. Ramos arrived and showed a small plastic bag containing the substance to the poseur-buyer. In exchange for the substance, the poseur-buyer handed Ramos the marked money. The buy-bust team considered this as confirmation that the sale had been consummated.

Ramos presented a different version of events, claiming that he was at SM Manila to fetch his wife when he was blocked by several men. These men held him, roamed around the mall, and eventually beat him inside a vehicle. He was brought to the PDEA office where he was asked to pay for his freedom. Ramos stated that he could not produce the amount and was later told that drugs were recovered from his wife.

Ramos was eventually found guilty by the RTC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The CA affirmed the decision, stating that the elements of the crime were sufficiently proven. Ramos argued that the witnesses did not have personal knowledge of the alleged sale transaction, that the police officers did not have probable cause to arrest him, and that the prosecution failed to establish the integrity and identity of the seized drugs.

The trial court convicted Ramos based on the testimony of the police officers involved in the operation and the marked money and seized drugs presented as evidence. The CA upheld the conviction, stating that while there was non-compliance with the requirements of the law, it did not affect the integrity of the seized drugs and the chain of custody of evidence. Both the prosecution and Ramos did not file a supplemental brief before the Supreme Court, relying on their respective appeal briefs before the appellate court. Ramos reiterated his arguments on the lack of personal knowledge of the witnesses, absence of probable cause for his arrest, and failure of the prosecution to establish the integrity and identity of the seized drugs.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the prosecution established the chain of custody of the seized shabu from the time it was recovered from the accused-appellant up to its presentation in court.

  2. Whether the non-compliance with the physical inventory and photograph requirements renders the seizure and custody of the items void and invalid.

  3. Whether the prosecution failed to justify the non-compliance with the procedure laid down in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.

  4. Whether the absence of a signature from the DOJ Representative is fatal to the prosecution's case.

  5. Whether the prosecution showed earnest efforts to secure the necessary witnesses.

  6. Whether there was compliance with the required procedures under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR.

  7. Whether there is a substantial gap in the chain of custody of the seized item from the accused.

RULING:

  1. The appeal is meritorious. The judgment of conviction is reversed and set aside, and the accused should be acquitted based on reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the seized shabu from the time it was recovered from the accused-appellant up to its presentation in court. The non-compliance with the physical inventory and photograph requirements does not render the seizure and custody of the items void and invalid.

  2. Yes, the prosecution failed to prove valid causes for the non-compliance of the procedure under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. The prosecution did not provide sufficient justifiable grounds for not conducting the physical inventory and photograph at the crime scene and for not having the required witnesses present.

  3. No, the absence of the DOJ Representative's signature is not fatal to the prosecution's case. However, the prosecution must show a justifiable reason for such failure or a genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses.

  4. No, the prosecution did not show earnest efforts to secure the necessary witnesses. Mere statements of unavailability, without actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses, are not acceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance.

  5. The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and acquitted the accused on reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt due to the substantial gap in the chain of custody of the seized item from the accused.

PRINCIPLES:

  • In order to be convicted of illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the identity of the buyer and seller, the object of the sale and its consideration, as well as the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor must be established.

  • The identity of the dangerous drug must be established beyond reasonable doubt and it must be proven that the substance bought during the buy-bust operation is exactly the same substance offered in evidence before the court.

  • The chain of custody ensures the removal of unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence and must be established through duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs.

  • The immediate physical inventory and photograph of the confiscated items at the place of arrest may be excused in instances where the safety and security of the apprehending officers and witnesses or the items seized are threatened by immediate danger.

  • The procedure under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is a matter of substantive law and cannot be ignored as a procedural technicality.

  • Non-compliance with Section 21 is not fatal to the prosecution's case if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved, and if the prosecution justifies the procedural lapses and shows earnest efforts to comply with the procedure.

  • Justifiable grounds for non-compliance with Section 21 must be proven as a fact and cannot be presumed. The prosecution must show that the non-compliance was not consciously ignored and that the actions of the police officers were reasonable under the given circumstances.

  • Failure to comply with the required procedures under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR can affect the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item.

  • The prosecution has the burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.