SECOND DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 218805, November 07, 2018 ]

DECISION
CAGUIOA, J:

Facts:

Version of the prosecution

On the strength of an information about the drug selling activity of [Fatallo] relayed by the confidential
informant to the concerned operatives, Police Inspector ExcelsoLawzaga, Jr. formed a buy bust team
composed of SPO2 FulveoJoloyohoy, [SPO1 Delos Santos], [SPO1 Avila], [PO2 Coquilla], PO1 Cultura
and the confidential informant, [who acted as the poseur-buyer].

The team conducted a buy-bust operation on [Fatallo] at Jean's Store located at T. Calo, Butuan City.
Fatallo was arrested of selling drugs to poseur-buyer when the machine copies of marked monies matched
the eight (8) pieces of one hundred-peso bill (P100.00) from Fatallo.

Fatallo was immediately brought to the team's office for booking and documentation. From the crime scene
to the office, SPO2 Joloyohoy got hold of the two (2) sachets of shabu seized from [Fatallo]. In the office,
SPO2 Joloyohoy marked the two (2) sachets of shabu with identifying marks A-l and A-2. The team also
prepared four requests for laboratory examinations. Afterwards, pictures were taken on [Fatallo] and on the
shabu recovered from him. From the office, SPO2 Joloyohoy, accompanied by PO1 Cultura, brought the
two (2) sachets of shabu and the written requests to the crime laboratory for examination.[6]

Version of the defense

When Fatallo and his live-in partner were sleeping on the evening of March 1, 2004, Fatallo heard
someone knocking on the door. When he opened the door, he saw 2 persons pointing their guns at
him.Thereafter, the two (2) persons ordered [Fatallo] to lie down, facing towards the floor. Afterwards,
without the presence of any barangay official and without showing any piece of paper or any sort of
authority, the operatives frisked x xx him and searched his room for about thirty (30) minutes. The police
officers found nothing from [Fatallo]. However, on top of the bed of [Fatallo], the police officers confiscated
his wallet containing P4,500.00 to make it as evidence. [Fatallo] protested the confiscation of his wallet but
the police officers stepped on his back and told him not to move or complain, or else they will maul him.
Thereafter, the police officers brought [Fatallo], his live-in partner, Jing-jing, RR Esguerra and RR's live-in
partner, VanjingLozada, to their office. RR and Vanjing were the ones allegedly renting a room at [Fatallo's]
house. In the office, the operatives showed the alleged marked monies to [Fatallo] but did not show to him
any shabu. There were also no barangay officials present in the office.

The foregoing testimony x xx was corroborated by [Fatallo's] sister, ElvieFatalloPoson.

In its Omnibus Decision dated March 1, 2012, the RTC found Fatallo guilty beyond reasonable doubt for
violations of Sections 5 and 15 of R.A. 9165.

The RTC found that the prosecution, by testimonial and documentary evidence, successfully proved the
elements of the offenses and established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The RTC gave
full weight and credit to the prosecution's version of the events, which it found more logical, ordinary and in
the course of human experience; as opposed to the accused's narration, which lacks candor and sincerity.

Aggrieved, Fatallo appealed to the CA.[10] In this appeal, Fatallo raised the following grounds: (1) the non-
presentation of the poseur buyer as a witness is fatal to the case;[11] (2) the police officers failed to comply
with the requirements under Section 21 of R.A. 9165;[12] and (3) the chain of custody of the confiscated
drugs was not established.

Ruling of the CA

The CA sustained Fatallo's conviction and held that the prosecution sufficiently discharged its burden of
establishing the elements of the crimes charged[14] and proving Fatallo's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Hence, the instant appeal.

Issue: whether the RTC and CA erred in convicting Fatallo of the crimes charged.

The Court's Ruling

The appeal is meritorious.

After a review of the records, the Court resolves to acquit Fatallo as the prosecution utterly failed to prove
that the buy-bust team complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 21 of R.A. 9165 and for its
failure to establish the unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs.

Fatallo was charged with the crimes of illegal sale and illegal use of dangerous drugs, defined and
penalized under Sections 5 and 15, Article II of R.A. 9165, respectively. To sustain a conviction for illegal
sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer
and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment
therefor.[18]

In cases involving dangerous drugs, the confiscated drug constitutes the very corpus delicti of the
offense[19] and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction.[20] It is essential,
therefore, that the identity and integrity of the seized drugs be established with moral certainty.[21] The
prosecution must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the substance seized from the accused is exactly
the same substance offered in court as proof of the crime. Each link to the chain of custody must be
accounted for.[22]
xxx
Also, while it is true that there are cases where the Court had ruled that the failure of the apprehending
team to strictly comply with the procedure laid out in Section 21 of R.A. 9165 does not ipso facto render the
seizure and custody over the items void and invalid; the law requires the prosecution to still satisfactorily
prove that: (a) there is justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized items are properly preserved.[26] The Court has repeatedly emphasized that the prosecution
should explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses.[27] without any justifiable explanation, the
evidence of the corpus delicti is unreliable, and the acquittal of the accused should follow on the ground
that his guilt has not been shown beyond reasonable doubt.[28]

In the present case, none of the three (3) required witnesses was present at the time of seizure and
confiscation and even during, the conduct of the inventory. Based on the narrations of SPO1 Delos
Santos[29] and PO2 Coquilla,[30] not one of the required witnesses was present at the time the plastic
sachets were allegedly seized from Fatallo or during the inventory of the recovered drugs at the police
station.

It bears emphasis that the presence of the required witnesses at the time of the apprehension and
inventory is mandatory, and that the law imposes the said requirement because their presence serves an
essential purpose.

xxx

Thus, Fatallo was subjected to a drug test as a result of his apprehension which, as already explained, was
conducted in violation of Section 21, R.A. 9165. Section 21, R.A. 9165 is a statutory exclusionary rule of
evidence, bearing in mind that, under the Rules of Court, "evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the
issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules."[57]

The results of the drug test cannot therefore be used against Fatallo for they are considered, under the law,
as the "fruit of the poisonous tree."