Title
People vs. Mercader
Case
G.R. No. 233480
Decision Date
Jun 20, 2018
Melanie B. Mercader was acquitted of drug charges due to police non-compliance with chain of custody rules, compromising evidence integrity.
illegal drug sale
illegal drug possession
chain of custody rule

Case Summary (G.R. No. 233480)

Factual Background

The prosecution alleged that on the afternoon of September 8, 2003, members of the Philippine National Police (PNP) in Marikina City received a report from a confidential informant that Mercader and her husband, alias “Tisoy,” were selling drugs at their residence in Corazon Compound, Cogeo, Antipolo City. Acting on the report, a buy-bust team was formed, with Police Officer 2 Edwin Dano (PO2 Dano) as team leader and Police Officer 1 Christopher Anos (PO1 Anos) as the poseur-buyer. Other officers served as back-ups, including PO1 Roberto Muega and PO1 Richie Gaerlan.

After pre-operation procedures, coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) and the PNP of Antipolo, and movement to the target area, the confidential informant approached Mercader, introduced PO1 Anos as a buyer, and asked whether shabu could be purchased. Mercader asked the price; PO1 Anos replied “Dos lang, pang-gamit namin” and handed over marked money. Mercader then allegedly took from her right pocket a heat-sealed plastic sachet of suspected shabu and gave it to PO1 Anos. As the pre-arranged signal, once PO1 Anos received the sachet, he tied his shoe lace. The other police officers then rushed in to arrest Mercader.

During the arrest, Tisoy allegedly tried to approach the officers, but Mercader supposedly warned him to run away. The prosecution further alleged that a preventive search on Mercader yielded two additional heat-sealed plastic sachets of suspected shabu. PO1 Anos marked the items at the place of arrest with labels “LBM-CA BUY BUST,” “LBM-CA POSS I,” and “LBM-CA POSS II.” The seized items were brought to the Marikina Police Station, after which a request for laboratory examination was secured. PO1 Anos then delivered the items to the PNP Crime Laboratory Service, where Forensic Chemical Officer-Police Senior Inspector Annalee R. Porro confirmed that the specimens tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, known as shabu.

Mercader denied the charges. She claimed that around seven o’clock in the evening of September 8, 2003, she was on her way home with her two children when a police officer suddenly grabbed her hand and accused her of selling drugs. She asserted that no drugs were found on her, and that she was forcibly taken to the Marikina police station where the officers extorted money from her.

Trial Court Proceedings

The RTC found Mercader guilty beyond reasonable doubt in both cases. In Crim. Case No. 03-26511, the RTC held her liable for violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 and sentenced her to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00. In Crim. Case No. 03-26512, it found her guilty under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 and imposed imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years, with a fine of P300,000.00.

The RTC ruled that the prosecution established the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession through the testimonies of the police officers, concluding that Mercader sold shabu to PO1 Anos during the buy-bust operation and that she possessed two additional plastic sachets. The RTC rejected Mercader’s denials and allegation of extortion for lack of substance. It also held that the lack of prior surveillance and the failure to offer the marked money as evidence did not invalidate the buy-bust operation, because the RTC found that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved and that the chain of custody was sufficiently established.

Appellate Review Before the Court of Appeals

On appeal, the CA affirmed. It held that Mercader was validly arrested and that the prosecution proved all elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The CA further found that there was an unbroken chain of custody, based on its conclusion that PO1 Anos had possession of the sachets from seizure until turnover to the crime laboratory.

The Issue

The Supreme Court framed the principal issue as whether the CA correctly upheld Mercader’s conviction for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, particularly in light of the prosecution’s compliance with the evidentiary requirements governing the custody and handling of seized drugs.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Supreme Court reiterated that in criminal appeals, the appellate tribunal must correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment even if unassigned. It then recited the elements necessary for conviction.

For illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the prosecution must establish (a) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration, and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and payment. For illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, it must prove (a) possession of an item identified as prohibited drug, (b) unauthorized possession by law, and (c) conscious and voluntary possession.

The Court emphasized that in both offenses, the identity of the prohibited drug must be established with moral certainty because the dangerous drug is integral to the corpus delicti. It stressed that to avoid reasonable doubt, the prosecution must show an unbroken chain of custody from seizure to presentation in court, and must account for each link in that chain.

The Court then anchored its ruling on Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, governing the procedure for custody and disposition of seized drugs. It noted that the provision, prior to amendment by RA 10640, required that immediately after seizure, the apprehending team conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or person from whom seized (or the latter’s representative or counsel), along with a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official who would be required to sign the inventory copies and receive copies thereof. It also required that the seized drugs be turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory within twenty-four hours for examination.

The Court recognized the jurisprudential clarification that strict compliance with Section 21 might not always be possible in varied field conditions, and that the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), as later crystallized into law with RA 10640, allow the inventory and photography to be done at the nearest police station or office in warrantless seizures, and that non-compliance under justifiable grounds does not automatically invalidate seizure and custody if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.

Accordingly, the Court held that the failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the Section 21 procedure does not ipso facto negate the prosecution’s case. Still, the prosecution must satisfactorily prove (a) a justifiable ground for non-compliance and (b) proper preservation of integrity and evidentiary value. It cited the need to explain the reasons behind procedural lapses as a matter that cannot be presumed, and it placed the burden on the prosecution to prove the justifiable ground as a fact.

Applying these standards, the Court found that the police officers committed unjustified deviations from the prescribed chain of custody requirements, which put into question the integrity and evidentiary value of the items allegedly seized from Mercader.

First, the Court found that the marking of the seized items was not done in the presence of the required witnesses, namely a representative from the media, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official. The Court noted that the prosecution did not provide any justifiable ground to explain the lapse. It also observed that the record did not mention these required personalities.

Second, the Court concluded that there was no proof that a physical inventory and photography of the seized items were conducted. PO1 Anos admitted on cross-examination that he did not prepare any inventory, did not record anything in the police blotter, and did not list the confiscated items. Although PO2 Dano testified that PO1 Anos prepared a written inventory which Mercader signed and that photographs were taken and existed in a file, the Court held that the record contained no showing that the required inventory or photography was actually conducted. It further noted that the supposed inventory or photographic documents referenced by PO2 Dano were not offered in evidence before the trial court.

The Court reasoned that mere marking, without physical inventory and photographs and without the presence of the necessary witnesses under the law, did not approximate compliance with the mandatory procedure in Section 21. It stressed that Section 21 is a matter of s

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms