People vs. Merando

Strict compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (RA 9165) is mandatory; the presence of third-party witnesses during both the actual seizure and the immediate inventory and photographing of dangerous drugs is essential to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti. Non-compliance without justifiable grounds creates reasonable doubt regarding the identity of the seized substance, warranting acquittal of the accused.

A confidential informant reported to the Pasig City Police Station that a certain "Begote," later identified as Jayson Merando y Aves, was selling illegal drugs along Magsaysay Street, Barangay Manggahan, Pasig City. Acting on this information, the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Group organized a buy-bust operation for the following day, designating PO1 Edmon Reyes as the poseur-buyer and PO2 Fidel Anggati as immediate backup. The operation resulted in the arrest of Merando and the seizure of one heat-sealed plastic sachet containing suspected marijuana.

• On April 8, 2013, at around 7:00 p.m., a confidential informant reported to the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Group at Pasig City Police Station that a certain "Begote" (Jayson Merando y Aves) was selling illegal drugs along Magsaysay Street, Barangay Manggahan, Pasig City.
• Chief Inspector Renato B. Castillo organized a buy-bust team composed of PO1 Edmon Reyes as poseur-buyer and PO2 Fidel Anggati as immediate backup.
• A P100.00 bill with Serial No. ZK155166, marked with initials "EBR" by PO1 Reyes, was prepared as buy-bust money, and coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency was undertaken.
• On April 9, 2013, at around 2:00 p.m., the informant spotted Merando at a market on Magsaysay Street and directed the team thereto.
• Prior to the operation, the team entered the buy-bust operation in the barangay blotter at Manggahan Barangay Hall.
• At the market, the informant introduced Merando to PO1 Reyes as "Begote." Reyes stated he wanted to buy marijuana; Merando demanded payment and handed Reyes one plastic sachet containing suspected dried marijuana leaves after receiving the marked money.
• PO1 Reyes turned his cap to signal consummation of the sale, whereupon PO2 Anggati approached, and Reyes identified himself as a police officer and held Merando's arm while Anggati seized the buy-bust money from Merando's hand.
• At the place of arrest and in Merando's presence, PO1 Reyes marked the plastic sachet with "1 ERB/BEGOTE 04/09/2013" and allegedly photographed and inventoried the seized item there.
• The team brought Merando and the seized item to the Manggahan Barangay Hall where barangay officials Luis S. Magudadayao and Noli Nicolas Novero signed the inventory, though they were not present during the actual seizure.
• The team proceeded to the Pasig City Police Station where PO3 Andrew Prado prepared requests for laboratory examination and drug test, and the seized item was photographed.
• Merando was taken to Rizal Medical Center for medical examination, after which the seized item, request for laboratory examination, and chain of custody form were brought to the Eastern Police District Crime Laboratory in Marikina City and received by PO2 Gerald Galutan.
• Laboratory examination confirmed the contents of the sachet (weighing 2.17 grams) tested positive for marijuana.
• Merando denied the charges, claiming he was merely playing his PlayStation Portable when PO1 Reyes apprehended him without cause, frisked him and found nothing, then brought him to the barangay hall where he was accused of selling marijuana and ordered to sign documents.
• The trial court and Court of Appeals found that none of the required third-party witnesses (media, DOJ representative, elected public official) were present during the inventory and photographing at the place of arrest, and that the photographing actually occurred at the police station, not at the place of arrest.

• The elements of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were duly established with proof beyond reasonable doubt.
• Every link in the chain of custody was sufficiently accounted for, showing the seized item's integrity was preserved.
• The law only requires "substantial" and not "perfect adherence" to Section 21 requirements.
• The absence of representatives from the media and the Department of Justice did not render the confiscated items inadmissible.
• The accused failed to demonstrate bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence had been tampered with.

• The Regional Trial Court erred in convicting him despite the police officers' noncompliance with Section 21 of RA 9165, specifically their failure to secure the mandatory third-party representatives during the inventory and photographing of the seized drugs.
• The saving clause in Section 21 allowing non-compliance under justifiable grounds did not apply because the prosecution failed to provide any justifiable reason for their failure to comply.
• The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties cannot cure the patent irregularity in the chain of custody.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues: 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 of 2002 despite the buy-bust team's non-compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of the law.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive: The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and acquitted Merando. The Court held that Section 21 of RA 9165 (in its original form prior to amendment by RA 10641) demands strict compliance with the requirement that the apprehending team conduct an immediate physical inventory and photographing of the seized drugs in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice, and any elected public official. The presence of these third-party witnesses is imperative not only during the inventory but also during the actual seizure to serve as an "insulating presence" against switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. Here, the buy-bust team had approximately 19 hours from receipt of the information to the conduct of the operation to secure the presence of the required witnesses, yet failed to do so without offering any justifiable ground. Furthermore, the team violated Section 21 by photographing the seized item only at the police station rather than at the place of arrest. The saving clause in the Implementing Rules and Regulations, which excuses non-compliance under justifiable grounds provided integrity is preserved, cannot apply where no justifiable reason is proffered. The presumption of regularity in official duties does not apply when the official act is irregular on its face. Consequently, the unjustified noncompliance with the chain of custody procedure created reasonable doubt as to the identity and integrity of the dangerous drug allegedly seized, necessitating acquittal.

• Chain of Custody in Dangerous Drugs Cases — A procedure to ensure that the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti (the seized dangerous drug) are preserved from seizure to presentation in court, preventing tampering, alteration, or substitution. The Court applied this strictly, requiring the prosecution to account for every link in the chain with sufficient completeness to render improbable any exchange, contamination, or tampering.
• Insulating Presence Rule — The mandatory presence of elected public officials, representatives of the National Prosecution Service (DOJ), and the media during the actual seizure and immediate inventory of dangerous drugs. These witnesses serve as a protective buffer against the evils of switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence that tainted previous anti-drug operations.
• Saving Clause Exception — The provision in the IRR of RA 9165 that non-compliance with Section 21 requirements under justifiable grounds shall not render seizures void if integrity and evidentiary value are properly preserved. The Court held this inapplicable where the prosecution offers no justifiable reason for non-compliance.
• Presumption of Regularity — The rule that official acts are presumed to have been performed in a regular manner. The Court held this presumption does not apply when the official act is patently irregular, such as when mandatory procedural safeguards in drug seizures are completely disregarded without explanation.

• "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."
• "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 presence of third-party witnesses is imperative, not only during the physical inventory and taking of pictures, but also during the actual seizure of items."
• "The insulating presence of such witnesses would have preserved an unbroken chain of custody."
• "A unique characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are not readily identifiable as in fact they are subject to scientific analysis to determine their composition and nature... Hence, in authenticating the same, a standard more stringent than that applied to cases involving objects which are readily identifiable must be applied."

• People v. Siaton, 789 Phil. 87 (2016) — Cited for the rule that in illegal sale of drugs, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must be shown to have been preserved, and that the dangerous drug's unique characteristics render it easily open to tampering.
• Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576 (2008) — Cited for the stringent standard required in authenticating narcotic substances and the necessity of a complete chain of custody to render improbable any exchange or contamination.
• People v. Sagana, 815 Phil. 356 (2017) — Applied as precedent for acquittal where none of the required third-party representatives were present during the inventory of seized articles.
• People v. Que, G.R. No. 212994, January 31, 2018 — Cited for the requirement that third-party witnesses must be present during the actual seizure and inventory to serve as an insulating presence against evidence tampering.
• People v. Cadungog, G.R. No. 229926, April 3, 2019 — Cited for the principle that buy-bust teams have sufficient time and opportunity to bring the required witnesses to the operation.
• People v. Mendoza — Referenced in Que for characterizing the presence of witnesses as an "insulating presence" against switching or planting of evidence.
• People v. Royol, G.R. No. 224297, February 13, 2019 — Cited for the principle that Section 21 demands strict compliance and cannot give way to a facsimile.

• Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) — Defines the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs and its penalty.
• Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 (Original version, prior to amendment by RA 10641) — Mandates the custody and disposition of confiscated dangerous drugs, requiring immediate physical inventory and photographing in the presence of the accused, media, DOJ, and elected public official representatives.
• Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 — Provides the saving clause allowing non-compliance under justifiable grounds provided integrity and evidentiary value are preserved.

• N/A (Justices Peralta, A. Reyes, Jr., and Hernando concurred in the result without writing separate opinions).