4/16/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly step "serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence[.]"[38] In People v. Gonzales:[39] The importance of the prompt marking cannot be denied, because succeeding handlers of the dangerous drugs or related items will use the marking as reference. Also, the marking operates to set apart as evidence the dangerous drugs or related items from other material from the moment they are confiscated until they are disposed of at the close of the criminal proceedings, thereby forestalling switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. In short, the marking immediately upon confiscation or recovery of the dangerous drugs or related items is indispensable in the preservation of their integrity and evidentiary value.[40] Here, the marking of the seized drugs was not done immediately after accusedappellant's arrest. In his own words, PO3 Temporal revealed that the team decided to mark and inventory the items at the barangay hall after deeming the target area to be unsafe, it being "a Muslim area": Q: Why did you mark the evidence at the Barangay Tumana and not at the place where the incident happened? A: Ma'am the area is not safe so we decided to bring the items at the barangay Q: What made you say that the area is not safe? A: It is a Muslim area, ma'am." .... Q: Why were you in Barangay Tumana when you put the marking, Mr. witness, and not at the place where the incident happened? A: Because the place is risky so the group agreed that we do the marking at the Barangay Tumana, ma'am.[41] (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted) The prosecution's attempt to justify the delay in marking and inventorying the items is too weak, if not callous, a reason to validate the police officers' noncompliance with the chain of custody requirements. In the recent case of People v. Sebilleno,[42] this Court denounced the prosecution's reasoning that the target area was a "notorious Muslim community" to justify noncompliance with Section 21. We stressed that such invocation constitutes a bigoted view that only stirs conflict among Filipinos of different religious affiliations. To sustain the police officers' equating of a so-called "Muslim area" with dangerous places does not only approve of a hollow justification for deviating from statutory requirements, but reinforces outdated stereotypes and blatant prejudices. Islamophobia, the hatred against the Islamic community, can never be a valid reason to justify an officer's failure to comply with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. Courts must be wary of readily sanctioning lackadaisical justifications and perpetuating outmoded biases. No form of religious discrimination can be countenanced to justify the prosecution's failure to comply with the law. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66117 6/12