G.R. No. 190466. April 18, 2016.
LUIS DERILO y GEPOLEO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

On November 19, 2004, a police team led by SPO1 Sonny Evasco served a search warrant at petitioner Luis Derilo’s residence in Bulan, Sorsogon. The team was accompanied by two barangay tanods. SPO1 Evasco instructed the barangay tanods to conduct the search inside the petitioner’s bedroom as a precaution against accusations of evidence planting. The tanods recovered twelve plastic sachets containing a white crystalline substance from a matchbox. The police also found suspected drug paraphernalia (aluminum foils, a tube, lighters) in plain view. SPO1 Evasco marked the seized items with his initials at the scene, prepared an inventory (which the petitioner refused to sign), and took photographs. The items and the petitioner were taken to the police station. The seized items were later brought to the court and then to the PNP Crime Laboratory. An initial field test by SPO1 Alejandro Usi on November 19, 2004, yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). A confirmatory test by forensic chemist P/Inspt. Josephine Clemens on November 20, 2004, confirmed the presence of shabu. The petitioner was charged with violation of Sections 11 (possession of dangerous drugs) and 12 (possession of drug paraphernalia), Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that: (1) the search was unlawful due to the delegation of the search to barangay tanods, rendering the evidence inadmissible as “fruit of the poisonous tree”; (2) there were inconsistencies in prosecution testimonies regarding who found the evidence; and (3) the chain of custody was broken because the items were not marked in his presence.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sections 11 and 12 of Article II of R.A. No. 9165, particularly in establishing the integrity and identity of the seized dangerous drugs through an unbroken chain of custody.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petitioner’s appeal and acquitted him for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court emphasized that in drug prosecutions, the dangerous drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti, and its identity must be established with moral certainty. The chain of custody rule under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is crucial to remove doubts about the identity of the seized drugs. The prosecution must account for each link in the chain: seizure and marking, turnover to the investigating officer, turnover to the forensic chemist, and submission to the court.
The Court found a fatal gap in the chain of custody. The evidence failed to establish who delivered the seized items from the police station to the court and then to the crime laboratory. The testimonies of SPO1 Evasco and PO2 Lobrin only accounted for the items from the seizure up to their delivery to the police station. There was no testimony from the officer(s) who physically transported the items from the police station to the court and then to the forensic chemist. While SPO1 Calupit and PO2 Lobrin were identified as the ones who brought the items to the laboratory, there was no testimony detailing the handling and transfer of the evidence from the police station, through the court, and into their custody for delivery. The prosecution did not present the investigating officer or any witness to testify on these critical transfers. This break in the chain of custody created reasonable doubt as to whether the items examined in the laboratory and presented in court were the same ones seized from the petitioner. Consequently, the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti were not preserved. The Court did not find it necessary to rule on the other issues raised by the petitioner in light of this dispositive finding.