People v. Vistro
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Jonathan Vistro y Baysic was accused of selling one (1) heat-sealed plastic sachet containing 0.01 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, to a poseur-buyer from the Philippine Drugs Enforcement Agency (PDEA). The alleged sale occurred on June 4, 2009, in Acosta St., Poblacion, Urbiztondo, Pangasinan. The prosecution presented evidence detailing a buy-bust operation where an undercover agent posed as a buyer, transacted with Vistro, and subsequently signaled for his arrest. The defense, however, denied the charges, claiming Vistro was brought to the PDEA office along with his family members and laundry woman, and that no dangerous drugs were found in their residence. 2. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Carlos City, Pangasinan, Branch 57, found Vistro guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). The RTC sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00, while acquitting co-accused Teresita Baysic. Vistro appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in its Decision dated September 4, 2015, affirmed the RTC's ruling, finding that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized shabu were preserved despite alleged non-compliance with certain procedural requirements. 3. The Petition: Vistro filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, seeking reversal of his conviction. His primary argument centered on the alleged failure of the prosecution to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized shabu. Specifically, he contended that the arresting team did not comply with Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165, which mandates the physical inventory and photographing of seized items in the presence of the accused and specific witnesses (media, DOJ representative, elected public official). The Supreme Court granted the appeal, reversing the CA's decision and acquitting Vistro due to the prosecution's failure to provide justifiable grounds for the absence of the required witnesses during the inventory and photographing of the seized evidence, thereby creating doubt as to its integrity.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution established the chain of custody of the seized shabu in compliance with Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, and whether the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were preserved.
Ruling
The appeal is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant Jonathan Vistro y Baysic is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for another lawful cause.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of Chain of Custody and Integrity of Corpus Delicti: The Court found merit in the appeal, reversing the conviction. The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized shabu due to non-compliance with Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. This section mandates that the apprehending team, immediately after seizure and confiscation, shall physically inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official. While a barangay official signed the Certificate of Inventory, there was no mention of the presence of media and DOJ representatives during the inventory and photograph of the seized shabu. The arresting officer failed to provide a justifiable ground for the absence of these required witnesses. The Court reiterated that the absence of these witnesses is not per se fatal, but the prosecution must allege and prove a justifiable reason for their absence and demonstrate earnest efforts to secure their presence. The failure to do so creates doubt as to the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized shabu. Therefore, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti, which is essential for a successful prosecution under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165. Consequently, the appellant must be acquitted.
Main Doctrine
The failure of the prosecution to secure the attendance of the required witnesses (media representative and DOJ representative) during the inventory and photograph of the seized drug, without providing any reasonable justification therefor, creates doubt as to the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug, warranting acquittal.