Case Digest (G.R. No. 223140)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Rosemarie Gardon-Mentoy, G.R. No. 223140, September 04, 2019, Supreme Court First Division, Bersamin, C.J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff-appellee was the People of the Philippines; the accused-appellant was Rosemarie Gardon-Mentoy.An anonymous informant told local police in Palawan that a couple, identified only by nicknames including “Rose,” would be transporting and selling marijuana aboard a Charing 19 shuttle van (plate VRA 698). The information was relayed to Police Senior Inspector Yolanda Socrates and a pre-operation report was submitted to the PDEA. The police established a checkpoint on the National Highway in Barangay Malatgao and, as the van approached, PO1 Abdulito Rosales flagged it down, identified the officers, and asked who among the passengers was “Rose.” Accused-appellant answered; officers then asked about her baggage.
Officers observed accused-appellant allegedly transfer a block-shaped bundle wrapped in yellow cellophane and tape from a pink bag to a black bag and place the black bag beside her. She purportedly showed signs of panic and attempted to alight, and the officers restrained her. Barangay Captain Ernesto Maiguez was summoned; he picked up and opened the black bag in the presence of the passengers and officers. The bag contained bundles and a sachet that the officers smelled and suspected to be marijuana. The items were taken to the police station, inventoried and marked (ADR-1, ADR-2, ADR-3), and submitted to the Palawan Crime Laboratory, where Forensic Chemist PCI Mary Jane Cordero reported positive results for marijuana.
At trial the prosecution offered the inventory, chemistry report, the seized items and witnesses; the defense admitted those documents but the accused testified she was handcuffed and taken to the station, denied seeing the barangay captain open her bag, and refused to sign documents. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted her on June 4, 2013 for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, treating the warrantless arrest as valid under Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, and sentenced her to life imprisonm...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the warrantless arrest and the warrantless search of the accused-appellant’s personal effects lawful, and are the seized marijuana leaves admissible under the exclusionary rule?
- Did the prosecution comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 (custody/chain of custody requirements), such that the seized items could...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)