Facts:

 Accused, Nelia Nicandro y Velarma, was charged with the violation of Section 4, Article
II, in relation to Section 2(e), (f), (l), (m), and (o), Article I of the Dangerous Drugs Act.
 The prosecution alleged that the accused, not authorized by law, willfully and unlawfully
sold marijuana cigarettes and other prohibited drugs.
 The Drug Enforcement Unit of Police Station No. 5 received complaints about the illegal
sale of prohibited drugs by someone known as "Nel" in the Commodore Pension House
in Manila.
 After conducting surveillance and verifying the reports, an entrapment operation was
organized.
 The police team, along with a confidential informant, went to the Commodore Pension
House, where the informant purchased four sticks of marijuana cigarettes from the
accused.
 The police then arrested the accused and found the marked money and marijuana
cigarettes in her possession.
 During the trial, the main witness for the prosecution, Pat. Joves, testified that he
witnessed the sale of marijuana cigarettes by the accused to the informant.
 However, his testimony was inconsistent, as he initially stated that the accused handed a
small plastic bag to the informant, but later corrected himself and said it was four sticks
of marijuana cigarettes.
 The defense argued that the prosecution's evidence was unreliable and that the accused's
constitutional rights were violated during custodial investigation.

Issue:
 Whether the prosecution's evidence is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt.
 Whether the accused's constitutional rights were violated during custodial investigation.

Ruling:
 The court found that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to establish the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
 The court also found that the accused's constitutional rights were violated during
custodial investigation.
 Therefore, the court ruled that the accused's oral admission during custodial
investigation was inadmissible as evidence.
 Based on these findings, the court reversed the decision of the trial court and acquitted
the accused on the basis of reasonable doubt.

Ratio:
 The court found that the testimony of the main witness for the prosecution, Pat. Joves,
was questionable and inconsistent.