GR 237975; (June, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 237975 June 19, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. JIMMY FULINARA Y FABELANIA, Accused-Appellant
FACTS
Accused-appellant Jimmy Fulinara was charged with Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution alleged that on March 4, 2016, a buy-bust operation was conducted in Valenzuela City where PO2 Julius Congson, acting as poseur-buyer, purchased a sachet of shabu from Fulinara for PHP 200. Upon arrest, a second sachet was recovered from Fulinara’s coin purse. The seized items were marked at the police station, and an inventory was conducted in the presence of a Barangay Kagawad. Representatives from the Department of Justice and the media were contacted but were unavailable.
The defense presented a different version, claiming Fulinara was arbitrarily arrested while on his way to buy medicine for his asthmatic son. He denied owning the drugs and alleged the police demanded money in exchange for his release. The Regional Trial Court convicted Fulinara, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution successfully established the identity and integrity of the seized dangerous drugs, thereby proving Fulinara’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for violations of Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court acquitted Jimmy Fulinara. The prosecution failed to comply with the strict chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended, creating reasonable doubt on the integrity of the evidence. The Court emphasized that in drug cases, the State must prove an unbroken chain of custody from seizure to presentation in court. Here, the arresting team committed unjustified deviations from the procedure. The inventory and photography were not conducted immediately at the place of seizure but later at the police station, with only a Barangay Kagawad present. The required witnesses from the National Prosecution Service and the media were absent, and the prosecution offered no convincing explanation for their non-attendance, merely stating their numbers were busy. This failure to establish a credible reason for non-compliance, coupled with the lack of testimony on how the evidence was handled and preserved between seizure at the scene and marking at the station, fatally breached the chain of custody. Consequently, the identity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were compromised, warranting acquittal based on reasonable doubt.