G.R. No. 224495 , February 19, 2020
ROMEO TUMABINI, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Romeo Tumabini was charged with violations of Sections 11 (Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs) and 12 (Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . The charges stemmed from a search conducted on June 19, 2003, at his residence in Lilo-an, Cebu, pursuant to a search warrant issued by the RTC of Cebu City. The implementing team, led by PSI Ricardo Flores and including SPO2 Reynaldo Matillano (searcher) and SPO1 Edwin Tesoro (recorder), was accompanied by Barangay Councilor Silvestre Pepito and Barangay Tanod Antonio Ayuda, Jr. Upon arrival at around 5:00 a.m., the team called out but received no answer, forcing open the first door. Petitioner eventually opened a second locked door. The search yielded three heat-sealed plastic packets and one sachet of white crystalline substance (marked “RT” and “IT”), one roll of tin foil, two lighters, and other items. An inventory was prepared and signed. The substances tested positive for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu). Petitioner denied the accusations, claiming the police barged in, forced him to sign a paper at gunpoint, and planted the evidence. The RTC found him guilty of both charges. The CA affirmed the conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs but acquitted him for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia, ruling the foil and lighters were ordinary household items not proven to be used with the drugs. Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the search at dawn was unreasonable and that the chain of custody rule was violated.

ISSUE

1. Whether the search conducted at dawn was unreasonable, rendering the seized evidence inadmissible.
2. Whether there was substantial compliance with the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 .

RULING

1. On the reasonableness of the search at dawn: The Supreme Court ruled the search was valid. Section 9, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court allows a search warrant to be served “at any time of the day or night” if the affidavit asserts the property is on the person or in the place to be searched. The search warrant in this case explicitly stated it could be served at “ANY TIME OF THE DAY OR NIGHT,” based on depositions stating a test buy occurred around 9:00 p.m. Thus, the issuing judge had basis to allow service at dawn, and petitioner failed to prove any abuse of discretion.
2. On the chain of custody: The Supreme Court found the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody, creating reasonable doubt as to the integrity and identity of the seized drugs. The Court highlighted several breaks and irregularities:
* Witness Requirement: The law requires the inventory and photographing to be conducted in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official. Here, only a barangay councilor and a tanod were present. The prosecution did not offer any justifiable reason for the absence of the required witnesses from the media and the DOJ.
* Handling and Preservation: There was a lack of evidence on how the seized items were handled after the inventory. The testimony did not specify who delivered the items to the crime laboratory, the mode of delivery, or how they were stored and preserved prior to examination. SPO2 Matillano merely stated he “turned over” the items to the investigator, without details.
* Marking: While the items were marked at the place of seizure, the testimony regarding who marked them was inconsistent. SPO2 Matillano claimed he marked them, but the Joint Judgment stated it was SPO1 Tesoro. This inconsistency cast doubt on the initial custody.
* Photographs: No photographs of the seized items were taken, which is a requirement under the law.
The Court emphasized that the State must prove compliance with the chain of custody procedure, and any lapse casts doubt on the integrity of the evidence. The unjustified absence of required witnesses and the gaps in the handling of the evidence constituted substantial gaps in the chain of custody. Consequently, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti were not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
DISPOSITIVE:
The petition was GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals was REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Romeo Tumabini was ACQUITTED of violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 . The Director of the Bureau of Corrections was ordered to cause his immediate release unless he is being lawfully held for another cause.