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 the mandatory requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and for failing to establish an unbroken chain of custody of seized drugs. This decision emphasizes the critical importance of adhering to proper procedures in handling drug evidence to protect the rights of the accused. The court underscores the need for law enforcement to meticulously follow the chain of custody rule to ensure the integrity and identity of seized drugs are preserved.

Unraveling Justice: When Drug Evidence Fails the Chain of Custody Test

Alvin Fatallo was charged with violating Sections 5 and 15, Article II of R.A. 9165, for the illegal sale and use of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as “shabu.” The prosecution alleged that Fatallo sold two sachets of shabu to a poseur-buyer during a buy-bust operation. Subsequently, he tested positive for drug use after a confirmatory test. Fatallo denied the charges, claiming that police officers searched his house without a warrant and planted evidence. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Fatallo, a decision later affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). However, the Supreme Court reversed these decisions, acquitting Fatallo due to significant lapses in the handling of evidence.

The Supreme Court anchored its decision on the prosecution’s failure to comply with Section 21 of R.A. 9165, which outlines the procedures for handling seized drugs. This section mandates that the apprehending team must immediately inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official. All these individuals must sign the inventory, ensuring transparency and accountability. Strict compliance with Section 21 is crucial to maintain the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs.

In this case, none of the required witnesses were present at the time of seizure and confiscation or during the inventory. The Supreme Court emphasized that the presence of these witnesses serves as an insulating presence to protect against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug. The Court cited People v. Tomawis, highlighting the necessity of these witnesses during the warrantless arrest to ensure the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of evidence. This presence is paramount to avoid any doubts regarding the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug.

The Court also rejected the argument that deviations from Section 21 are minor procedural matters. It stated that the procedure enshrined in Section 21 is a matter of substantive law and cannot be brushed aside. This provision safeguards against abuses and ensures that governmental actions in the campaign against illegal drugs are executed within legal boundaries. The Supreme Court clarified that the saving clause, which allows for deviations under justifiable grounds, does not apply here because the prosecution failed to acknowledge, justify, or explain the police officers’ non-compliance with Section 21.

Building on this, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody. The chain of custody refers to the sequence of transferring and handling evidence, specifically from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court, to ensure that the integrity and identity of the evidence are preserved. This requires that each person who handled the seized item must describe how and from whom they received it, where it was kept, its condition, and when it was delivered to the next person in the chain. The marking of seized drugs immediately after seizure is a critical step. However, in this case, the drugs were not marked at the place of seizure, casting doubt on their authenticity.

The Court noted that SPO2 Fulveo Barillo Joloyohoy, the officer who supposedly received the drugs from the poseur-buyer and delivered them to the police station, was never presented in court. SPO1 Delos Santos, while testifying about the exchange, did not witness the poseur-buyer handing over the drugs to SPO2 Joloyohoy. Moreover, the request for laboratory examination indicated that PO1 Monton, JRU, not SPO2 Joloyohoy, delivered the drugs to the forensic chemist, PSI Gucor, creating further confusion and doubt. PSI Gucor’s testimony lacked details on how the specimens were handled and who she received them from, leaving significant gaps in the chain of custody. Without a clear and unbroken chain, the integrity and identity of the seized drugs were compromised, leading to reasonable doubt.

Considering these critical failures, the Supreme Court emphasized the presumption of innocence, a constitutionally protected right. The burden lies with the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Judicial reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot overcome the stronger presumption of innocence, particularly when there are affirmative proofs of irregularity. The Court found that the buy-bust team’s blatant disregard of established procedures under Section 21 of R.A. 9165 invalidated the presumption of regularity.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court highlighted that even the Philippine National Police Drug Enforcement Manual (PNPDEM) was not followed. This manual requires detailed procedures for buy-bust operations, including the recording of time, coordination with PNP units, and inventory of seized evidence. Given these established procedures and the fact that a buy-bust is a planned operation, the Court found it incredulous that the team could not ensure the presence of required witnesses or properly document the seized items. This failure to adhere to established protocols further undermined the prosecution’s case.

With the acquittal of Fatallo on the charge of illegal sale, the Court also acquitted him on the charge of illegal drug use. The drug test, conducted as a result of his unlawful arrest, was deemed inadmissible under the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine. This doctrine states that evidence obtained as a direct or indirect result of illegal state action is inadmissible. Since the arrest was illegal due to non-compliance with Section 21, R.A. 9165, the drug test, which was a consequence of that arrest, could not be used against Fatallo. The Court noted that if Fatallo had not been unlawfully arrested, he would not have been subjected to the drug test.

In its conclusion, the Court strongly urged prosecutors to diligently prove compliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR). The Court emphasized that compliance with Section 21 is straightforward and essential for preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti. Appellate courts are encouraged to review the records to ensure that the required proof has been adduced, and any deviations from the prescribed procedure must be justified. If such deviations are unexplained, the conviction must be overturned, and the accused’s innocence affirmed.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution sufficiently complied with Section 21 of R.A. 9165 in handling seized drug evidence and establishing an unbroken chain of custody. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to meet these requirements, leading to the accused’s acquittal.
What is Section 21 of R.A. 9165?	Section 21 of R.A. 9165 outlines the procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, or surrendered dangerous drugs. It mandates that the apprehending team must immediately inventory and photograph the drugs in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official.
Why is the chain of custody important?	The chain of custody is crucial to ensure that the evidence presented in court is the same evidence seized from the accused. It prevents contamination, substitution, or loss of evidence, thereby protecting the integrity of the judicial process.
What does “fruit of the poisonous tree” mean?	The “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine holds that evidence derived from an illegal search, arrest, or interrogation is inadmissible in court. This rule prevents the government from exploiting its own unlawful conduct to obtain evidence.
What is a buy-bust operation?	A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment used by law enforcement to apprehend individuals engaged in illegal drug activities. It typically involves a poseur-buyer who pretends to purchase drugs from the suspect, leading to an arrest.
What are the roles of the required witnesses under Section 21?	The media representative, DOJ representative, and elected public official serve as impartial observers to ensure transparency and prevent planting or tampering of evidence. Their presence provides an insulating layer of protection against potential abuses by law enforcement.
What happens if there are gaps in the chain of custody?	Gaps in the chain of custody create reasonable doubt about the identity and integrity of the evidence. If the prosecution cannot account for every step in the handling of the evidence, it may lead to the exclusion of the evidence and the acquittal of the accused.
What is the presumption of regularity?	The presumption of regularity assumes that law enforcement officers perform their duties properly and in accordance with the law. However, this presumption cannot override the accused’s constitutional right to be presumed innocent, especially when there is evidence of irregularity.
Why was the accused acquitted of illegal drug use?	The accused was acquitted of illegal drug use because the drug test was a direct result of an illegal arrest. Since the arrest was unlawful due to non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165, the drug test was deemed inadmissible under the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine.

The Fatallo case serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of strict adherence to legal procedures in drug cases. It reinforces the necessity of an unbroken chain of custody and the mandatory presence of impartial witnesses to protect the rights of the accused and ensure the integrity of the evidence. This decision underscores that procedural lapses can undermine the prosecution’s case, leading to acquittal, regardless of the alleged offense.

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