View full case

PEOPLE v. MELANIE B. MERCADER

FACTS:

This case involves the appeal of accused-appellant Melanie B. Mercader against her conviction for violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The case originated from two Informations filed before the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City, charging Mercader with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The prosecution alleged that on September 8, 2003, a buy-bust operation was conducted by the Marikina City Police where Mercader was accused of selling shabu to a poseur-buyer. Two plastic sachets containing suspected shabu were also found in her possession. After conducting a laboratory examination, the police confirmed that the seized items were methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu." Mercader denied the charges and claimed that she was falsely accused and extorted money by the police officers. The RTC found Mercader guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both charges, and the CA affirmed her conviction. Mercader appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the correctness of her conviction.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals correctly upheld Mercader's conviction for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs.

  2. Whether the police officers committed unjustified deviations from the prescribed chain of custody rule.

RULING:

  1. The appeal is meritorious. The Court stressed that an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review, and the reviewing tribunal is duty-bound to correct and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment. In this case, the Court found that the police officers committed unjustified deviations from the prescribed chain of custody rule, thereby putting into question the integrity and evidentiary value of the items purportedly seized from Mercader.

  2. The police officers failed to comply with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 regarding the handling of seized drugs. The marking of the seized items was not done in the presence of any elected public official, a representative from the Department of Justice, and the media, and no justifiable ground was given to explain such lapse. Moreover, no physical inventory or photograph of the seized items was conducted. These deviations raised doubts on the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.

PRINCIPLES:

  • An appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review, and the reviewing tribunal is duty-bound to correct and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment.

  • In order to secure the conviction of an accused charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must prove the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, the consideration, the delivery of the thing sold, and the payment.

  • In instances where an accused is charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish that the accused was in possession of an item identified as a prohibited drug, such possession was not authorized by law, and the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.

  • It is essential to establish the identity of the prohibited drug with moral certainty, and the prosecution must show an unbroken chain of custody over the drug from the moment it was seized until its presentation in court.

  • Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 outlines the procedure for handling seized drugs to preserve their integrity and evidentiary value.

  • The failure to strictly comply with the procedure laid out in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 does not render the seizure and custody over the items void and invalid, provided there is justifiable ground for non-compliance and the integrity and evidentiary value of the items are properly preserved.

  • The prosecution must explain the reasons behind procedural lapses and prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized evidence have been preserved.

  • Compliance with the procedural requirements under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 is a matter of substantive law and failure to comply warrants acquittal.

  • Non-compliance with the chain of custody rule, as mandated by law, is a sufficient ground to acquit the accused.

  • The non-compliance with the procedural safeguards under Section 21 of RA 9165 casts doubt on the identity of the drug and jeopardizes the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti.

  • The procedures in Section 21 of RA 9165 ensure the protection of the rights of individuals as guaranteed by the Constitution, and even in the campaign against drugs, the rights of individuals should not be disregarded.

  • Prosecutors have the duty to prove compliance with the procedure set forth in Section 21 of RA 9165, and any perceived deviations from the procedure should be acknowledged and justified. The failure to raise any issue regarding the same in the lower courts does not preclude the appellate court from examining the records to ascertain compliance and, if not, to determine if justifiable reasons exist.