In the case of People of the Philippines v. Alvin Fatallo, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to comply with mandatory procedures for handling drug evidence, specifically Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. 9165), also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining an unbroken chain of custody to protect the integrity of seized drugs and to uphold the accused’s constitutional right to be presumed innocent. This decision reinforces the strict adherence to procedural safeguards required in drug-related cases to prevent wrongful convictions.

Unraveling the Buy-Bust: Did Police Procedures Protect Fatallo’s Rights?

Alvin Fatallo was charged with the crimes of illegal sale and illegal use of dangerous drugs. The prosecution alleged that a buy-bust operation was conducted, leading to Fatallo’s arrest and subsequent positive drug test. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Fatallo guilty, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). Fatallo appealed, arguing that the police officers failed to comply with Section 21 of R.A. 9165 and that the chain of custody of the confiscated drugs was not established.

The central legal question revolved around whether the prosecution adequately proved that the seized drugs were handled according to the law, preserving their integrity and admissibility as evidence. This involved a detailed examination of the procedures followed by the buy-bust team and whether any deviations prejudiced Fatallo’s right to a fair trial.

To fully grasp the Court’s ruling, a comprehensive understanding of the chain of custody principle is vital. In drug cases, the confiscated substance is the corpus delicti, or the body of the crime. The prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the substance seized from the accused is the same substance presented in court. This requires accounting for each link in the chain of custody, from seizure to presentation in court. The case emphasizes that the integrity and identity of the seized drugs must be established with moral certainty.

Section 21 of R.A. 9165 outlines specific procedures for handling seized drugs. It mandates that the apprehending team, immediately after seizure, must physically inventory and photograph the drugs in the presence of the accused or their representative, a media representative, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official. These witnesses must sign the inventory and receive a copy. The Supreme Court emphasized that “immediately after seizure and confiscation” means that the physical inventory and photographing of the drugs were intended by the law to be made immediately after, or at the place of apprehension.

The purpose of these requirements is to safeguard against planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug. As the Court noted in People v. Tomawis:

The presence of the witnesses from the DOJ; media, and from public elective office is necessary to protect against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug. x x x without the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the DOJ and any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the drugs, the evils of switching, “planting” or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of RA No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the subject sachet that were evidence of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused.

In Fatallo’s case, the Supreme Court found that the buy-bust team failed to comply with these mandatory requirements. None of the three required witnesses were present during the seizure or inventory. The Court noted that deviations from the procedure outlined in Section 21 cannot be brushed aside as mere technicalities. The procedure is a matter of substantive law and the absence of the required witnesses at the time of apprehension and inventory compromises the integrity of the process.

The Court also addressed the “saving clause” in the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. 9165. This clause allows for deviations from the strict requirements of Section 21 if the prosecution can demonstrate justifiable grounds for non-compliance and prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. However, in Fatallo’s case, the prosecution did not acknowledge the lapses or offer any justifications. This failure to justify the procedural lapses further undermined the reliability of the evidence.

Beyond the non-compliance with Section 21, the Court identified gaps in the chain of custody. The marking of the seized sachets was not done immediately at the place of seizure. Moreover, a key figure in the chain of custody, SPO2 Fulveo Barillo Joloyohoy, who allegedly received the drugs from the poseur-buyer and delivered them to the police station, was never presented as a witness. This created doubt as to whether the drugs presented in court were the same ones seized from Fatallo. The court stated that in People v. Dahil, it had consistently stressed that failure of the authorities to immediately mark the seized drugs would cast reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti.

The Court highlighted the importance of each person who handled the seized item describing how they received it, where it was kept, and its condition during their possession. Without SPO2 Joloyohoy’s testimony, a crucial link in the chain was missing. Further, discrepancies in the records regarding who delivered the drugs to the crime laboratory added to the doubt. The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody, compromising the identity and integrity of the seized drugs.

The Court also clarified the relationship between the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the accused’s constitutional right to be presumed innocent. The presumption of regularity cannot overcome the stronger presumption of innocence. The Court also stated that any divergence from the prescribed procedure must be justified and should not affect the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated contraband.

Finally, the Court addressed the charge of illegal drug use under Section 15 of R.A. 9165. Fatallo tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride after his arrest. However, because the arrest was deemed illegal due to non-compliance with Section 21, the results of the drug test were considered inadmissible. The Court applied the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine, which excludes evidence derived from an illegal act. Since the drug test was a direct result of the unlawful arrest, it could not be used against Fatallo.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Alvin Fatallo underscores the critical importance of adhering to the procedural safeguards outlined in Section 21 of R.A. 9165. The failure to comply with these safeguards, combined with gaps in the chain of custody, led to the acquittal of the accused. This case serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies of the need to meticulously follow the prescribed procedures to ensure the integrity of evidence and protect the rights of the accused.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution adequately proved compliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165 regarding the handling of seized drugs, and whether the chain of custody was properly established.
What is Section 21 of R.A. 9165?	Section 21 outlines the procedures that law enforcement must follow when handling seized drugs, including inventory, photographing, and the presence of specific witnesses. These procedures are designed to preserve the integrity of the evidence.
Why is the chain of custody important in drug cases?	The chain of custody ensures that the drug presented in court is the same one seized from the accused, preventing tampering or substitution. An unbroken chain is essential for a valid conviction.
What is the “saving clause” in the IRR of R.A. 9165?	The saving clause allows for deviations from Section 21 requirements if the prosecution can justify the non-compliance and prove the integrity of the seized drugs was maintained. However, the prosecution must acknowledge the lapses first.
What is the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine?	This doctrine excludes evidence obtained as a result of an illegal act. In this case, the drug test result was excluded because it was a result of an illegal arrest.
Who are the required witnesses under Section 21?	The required witnesses are the accused or their representative, a media representative, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official. Their presence ensures transparency and prevents planting of evidence.
What was the outcome of the case?	The Supreme Court acquitted Alvin Fatallo due to the prosecution’s failure to comply with Section 21 of R.A. 9165 and the gaps in the chain of custody. The Court emphasized the accused’s constitutional right to be presumed innocent.
What is the significance of marking the seized drugs immediately?	Immediate marking is crucial for identifying the seized drugs and distinguishing them from other substances. It also establishes the starting point of the chain of custody.
What happens if the police fail to follow the procedures in Section 21?	Failure to comply with Section 21 can lead to the exclusion of the seized drugs as evidence and the acquittal of the accused, as demonstrated in this case.

The Fatallo case serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of strictly adhering to legal procedures in drug-related cases. Law enforcement agencies must prioritize compliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165 to ensure the integrity of evidence and protect the constitutional rights of the accused. The ruling underscores that failure to do so can have significant consequences, potentially leading to the acquittal of individuals charged with drug offenses.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ALVIN FATALLO Y ALECARTE A.K.A. “ALVIN PATALLO Y ALECARTE”, ACCUSED-APPELLANT., G.R. No. 218805, November 07, 2018