Case Summary (G.R. No. 136143)
Procedural History
The RTC convicted Zafra and Marcelino for possession of shabu under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, sentencing each to an indeterminate term of twelve years and one day to thirteen years’ imprisonment and a fine of ₱300,000. Daluz pleaded guilty to possession of paraphernalia and served eight months. The CA denied petitioners’ appeal, prompting the present petition for certiorari.
Inconsistencies in Witness Testimony
SPO4 Mendoza was the sole witnesses. His trial testimony diverged from his prior sworn affidavit. In the affidavit, he described seeing Zafra handing a sachet to Marcelino at close range; at trial he asserted he observed each petitioner independently holding sachets from “a distance” and then confiscated them. On cross-examination his account shifted again, attributing the sachets and paraphernalia to different individuals. The Supreme Court found these material contradictions irreconcilable and detrimental to Mendoza’s credibility.
Presumption of Regularity vs. Presumption of Innocence
The RTC had relied on a presumption of regularity in Mendoza’s official duties to uphold the seizure and handling of evidence. The Supreme Court emphasized that such presumption cannot override the constitutional presumption of innocence under the 1987 Constitution. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is required to displace that presumption, and mere official regularity cannot supply missing or contradictory facts.
Chain of Custody Violations
RA 9165 Section 21 and its IRR mandate an immediate physical inventory and photographing of seized drugs in the presence of the accused (or counsel), a media representative, DOJ representative, and an elected official, all of whom must sign the inventory. SPO4 Mendoza alone apprehended the petitioners, marked the exhibits without any witness or photographic record, bore sole custody of the evidence, and delivered it to the crime laboratory. No inventory was conducted or presented. These lapses compromised the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti and fell short of the requirements designed to ensure an unbroken chain of custody.
Constitutional and Evidentiary Principles
Under Article III of the 1987 Constitution, the burden of proof rests on the prosecution, which must establish every elemen
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 136143)
Factual Background
- On 12 June 2003 at around 4:30 PM, SPO4 Apolinario Mendoza of the PNP–Balagtas conducted surveillance in front of a sari-sari store at the corner of Miraflor Subdivision and P. Castro Street, Balagtas, Bulacan, following reports of drug trafficking.
- Mendoza observed three men—Valentin Zafra y Dechosa (Zafra), Eroll Marcelino y Reyes (Marcelino), and Marlon Daluz—standing together; he testified that he saw Zafra and Marcelino each holding heat-sealed plastic sachets of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (“shabu”), while Daluz held an aluminum foil and a disposable lighter.
- Acting alone, Mendoza approached from behind, apprehended the three, seized two sachets of shabu (weighing 0.31 g and 0.30 g respectively), and confiscated Daluz’s paraphernalia. He frisked the accused, marked the sachets with their initials (VSD and EMR), and brought them by tricycle to the Balagtas Police Station.
- On 13 June 2003, Mendoza sent the accused for urine sampling and the seized items to the crime laboratory. Laboratory examination confirmed the positive presence of methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
Procedural History
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 76, Malolos, Bulacan, in a decision dated 11 June 2008, convicted Zafra and Marcelino for possession of shabu in violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, sentencing each to an indeterminate term of 12 years and 1 day to 13 years of imprisonment and a fine of ₱300,000.00.
- Co-accused Daluz pleaded guilty to possession of drug paraphernalia (Section 12, RA 9165), served eight months, and was released.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in toto on 30 October 2009 in CA-G.R. CR No. 31713.
- Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court, raising four principal grounds.
Issues on Appeal
- Whether the arrest and seizure were lawful.
- Whether the seized drugs were admissible in evidence.
- Whether Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 and its Implementing Rules and