Asto. Adm. No. 743 - Aguirre vs. Ramos

The case involves two Informations filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) against Lito Paming y Javier for violations under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).
The charges pertain respectively to the crimes of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs.

On the morning of September 14, 2010, at approximately 12:30 AM, a buy-bust operation was conducted by members of the Paracale Municipal Police Station with the assistance of a civilian informant.
During the operation, the police recovered during the buy-bust:

One heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram of a white crystalline substance from Paming.
A matchbox holding twenty-eight additional heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with a total weight of 0.85 gram of the suspected dangerous drug.

After the seizure, Paming was taken first to a nearby billiard hall for the initial process of marking the confiscated drugs, but the increasing number of people necessitated a transfer to the police station to continue the process.
At the police station, the seized items were handed over to designated personnel (the Desk Officer and the Investigator) and then taken to the crime laboratory where the contents tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).

The procedure included the marking of the seized items; however, this was not done immediately at the scene of arrest but rather at the nearest police station.
According to the rules on chain of custody, the items were required to be physically inventoried and photographed in the presence of the accused or his representative along with required witnesses.
Testimony from the arresting officer, PO2 Jason R. Poot, revealed that the physical inventory was allegedly conducted only by the Investigator, in the absence of the accused and the mandated witnesses (elected public official, representative of the media, and/or DOJ representative depending on applicable law).
No inventory report was submitted as evidence, and the photographs offered were not clearly linked to the presence of the required persons.

Paming denied the allegations, claiming that he was on a drinking spree when approached by a man named Gil (alias "Tatong"), who purportedly initiated a scheme to "score."
Paming further asserted that after he refused, he was ambushed by a group of five men who robbed him of money and valuables, suggesting a potential frame-up.
In a Joint Decision issued on August 26, 2014, by the RTC, Paming was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged.

In Criminal Case No. 14502 (Illegal Sale), he was sentenced to twelve (12) years and one (1) day imprisonment and fined P400,000.00.
In Criminal Case No. 14503 (Illegal Possession), he was sentenced to life imprisonment and fined P500,000.00.

The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision in its ruling dated January 16, 2018, leading to the filing of the appeal by Paming at the Supreme Court.

Whether the apprehending officers strictly complied with the mandatory chain of custody requirements, particularly the immediate marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items in the prescribed manner.
Whether the absence of required witnesses during the inventory and marking process compromised the integrity of the evidence.

Whether the failure to conduct the marking and inventory of the items in the presence of the accused or his duly designated representative and the required witnesses rendered the evidence inadmissible.
Whether the prosecution was able to satisfactorily demonstrate that, despite the procedural lapses, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved.

Whether the non-strict compliance with the chain of custody procedures could be excused under the saving clause provided in Section 21 (a), Article II of the IRR of RA 9165/RA 10640, if it was shown that there was a justifiable ground for non-compliance.
Whether the lack of a convincing explanation or genuine effort to secure the presence of the required witnesses negated the applicability of this saving clause.