People v. Merando
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Jayson Merando y Aves was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, with the prosecution alleging that on April 9, 2013, in Pasig City, Merando unlawfully sold one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 2.17 grams of dried suspected marijuana fruiting tops to PO1 Edmon Reyes; Merando pleaded not guilty to the charge, and the defense claimed he was apprehended while playing a video game, denied selling marijuana, and alleged the sachet and documents were planted. 2. Procedural History: The case originated with an Information filed on April 11, 2013, and after trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 164, rendered a Judgment on October 26, 2015, finding Merando guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00; Merando appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC's judgment in its Decision dated April 26, 2017, leading Merando to file a Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: Merando's appeal to the Supreme Court centers on the alleged non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations, specifically arguing that the apprehending officers failed to strictly comply with the procedural requirements for the custody and disposition of seized dangerous drugs, particularly the absence of required third-party witnesses (media, Department of Justice representative, elected public official) during the physical inventory and photographing of the seized item; the petition contends that the prosecution failed to provide justifiable grounds for this non-compliance and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were compromised, thus warranting acquittal.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly upheld the conviction of accused-appellant Jayson Merando y Aves for violating Article II, Section 5 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, considering the chain of custody. Whether the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drug was properly established despite non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165, and whether the prosecution provided a justifiable reason for the absence of required witnesses.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, acquitting Jayson Merando y Aves due to the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He was ordered immediately released from detention unless lawfully confined for another cause.
Ratio Decidendi
On the conviction and chain of custody: The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized dangerous drug due to non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. On the failure to comply with Section 21 of R.A. 9165 and absence of witnesses: The law requires the apprehending team to immediately inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or his representative, a media representative, a Department of Justice (DOJ) representative, and any elected public official. In this case, while the marking, photographing, and inventory were done, the required third-party witnesses (media, DOJ, elected official) were absent during the seizure and subsequent inventory and photographing. The Court noted that the apprehending officers had approximately 19 hours between receiving the initial report and the alleged buy-bust operation, providing ample opportunity to secure the presence of these witnesses. The Court found that the prosecution offered no justifiable reason for this failure, relying instead on the presumption of regularity, which cannot prevail when the official act is irregular on its face. The Court reiterated that "Section 21 demands strict compliance. Compliance cannot give way to a facsimile; otherwise, the purpose of guarding against tampering, substitution, and planting of evidence is defeated." The absence of these insulating witnesses raises doubts about the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item, which is the corpus delicti of the crime. Therefore, the Court found that the identity and integrity of the dangerous drug were not preserved, leading to reasonable doubt.
Main Doctrine
Unjustified noncompliance with the chain of custody procedure will shroud in doubt the identity and integrity of the dangerous drug allegedly seized. When there is reasonable doubt, an accused's acquittal must ensue.