In People v. Mercado, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Brian Mercado for violating Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The Court emphasized that while strict compliance with the chain of custody rule is ideal, the primary concern is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. This case reinforces the principle that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties applies to law enforcement officers, absent any evidence of ill motive or bad faith.

From Tip to Conviction: How a Buy-Bust Operation Led to a Drug Offense Ruling

This case began with a confidential tip that accused-appellant Brian Mercado was selling shabu. Based on this information, the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Unit (SAID-SOU) of the Philippine National Police (PNP) organized a buy-bust operation. PO3 Ramon Galvez acted as the poseur-buyer, offering to buy P200.00 worth of shabu from Mercado. According to the prosecution, Mercado produced three plastic sachets from his pocket, and after the exchange, PO3 Galvez identified himself as a police officer and arrested Mercado. Two additional sachets were found in Mercado’s possession during a subsequent search. The seized substances tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu.

Mercado, however, presented a different version of events. He claimed that he was merely walking home when police officers stopped him, forced him into a jeepney, and demanded P10,000.00 for his release. Unable to produce the money, he was charged with drug offenses. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Mercado guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this decision. The appellate court emphasized the importance of preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated drugs and noted that Mercado had not objected to the admissibility of the evidence during the trial.

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, reiterating the elements necessary for the successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale and possession of drugs. For illegal sale, the prosecution must prove the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. For illegal possession, it must establish that the accused possessed an item identified as a prohibited or regulated drug, that such possession was unauthorized by law, and that the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.

The Court found that the prosecution had sufficiently established these elements. PO3 Galvez testified to the actual exchange of money and drugs, and the seized substances were identified as shabu. Mercado failed to present any evidence to rebut his possession of the drug. The Court gave credence to the testimony of the police officers, who are presumed to have performed their duties regularly, absent any evidence to the contrary. The defense’s claim of extortion was unsubstantiated and did not outweigh the positive testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the physical evidence.

A key issue in this case was the chain of custody of the seized drugs. The chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. This includes testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered in evidence. The prosecution must prove that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit. The identity must be established with unwavering exactitude for it to lead to a finding of guilt.

While strict compliance with the prescribed procedures in the inventory of seized drugs is preferred, the Court clarified that failure to strictly comply does not automatically render the arrest illegal or the seized items inadmissible. The essential factor is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items. The Court emphasized that non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. Therefore, the weight to be given by the courts on said evidence depends on the circumstances obtaining in each case.

In Mercado’s case, the prosecution established that the police officers had custody of the drug seized from him from the moment of his arrest, during transport to the police station, and until it was submitted to the crime laboratory for examination. The witnesses identified the seized drug with certainty when presented in court. The stipulations entered into between the parties as to the testimony of the Forensic Chemical Officer further bolstered the integrity of the evidence. Therefore, the Court found no reason to disturb the findings of the lower courts. The procedural lapse was not fatal because the evidence was sufficient to prove the charges against the accused-appellant.

The Supreme Court also addressed Mercado’s failure to object to the admissibility of the evidence during trial. It reiterated that objections to the admissibility of evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. By failing to object during trial, Mercado was precluded from raising the issue on appeal. This highlights the importance of timely raising objections to preserve legal arguments for appellate review.

Building on this principle, the Court emphasized the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. This presumption applies to law enforcement officers unless there is evidence to the contrary. In Mercado’s case, the defense failed to show any ill motive or odious intent on the part of the police operatives to impute such a serious crime. Absent any proof of motive to falsely charge an accused, the presumption of regularity prevails over bare allegations.

The Court’s decision in People v. Mercado underscores the importance of the chain of custody rule in drug cases and clarifies that strict compliance with procedural requirements is not always necessary if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. It also reaffirms the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by law enforcement officers, which can be a significant factor in drug-related prosecutions. This ruling provides guidance to lower courts and law enforcement agencies on the proper handling of drug cases and the admissibility of evidence.

FAQs

What were the charges against Brian Mercado?	Brian Mercado was charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. No. 9165, for the illegal sale and possession of shabu.
What is a buy-bust operation?	A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment used to apprehend individuals engaged in illegal activities, such as drug peddling. It involves using a poseur-buyer to purchase illegal substances and then arresting the seller.
What is the chain of custody rule?	The chain of custody rule requires that the prosecution establish the identity and integrity of seized evidence by tracing its handling from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court. This ensures that the evidence presented is the same as that seized from the accused.
What happens if there is non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165?	Non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, which outlines procedures for handling seized drugs, does not automatically render the evidence inadmissible. The issue becomes one of evidentiary weight rather than admissibility, depending on the circumstances of the case.
What is the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties?	The presumption of regularity means that law enforcement officers are presumed to have acted in accordance with the law and their official duties, unless there is evidence to the contrary. This presumption can be crucial in drug-related prosecutions.
Why was Mercado’s defense of extortion not successful?	Mercado’s defense of extortion was not successful because he failed to present any credible evidence to support his claim. His bare allegation was insufficient to overcome the positive testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the physical evidence presented.
What is the significance of objecting to evidence during trial?	It is important to object to the admissibility of evidence during trial because objections cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Failure to object during trial constitutes a waiver of the right to challenge the evidence on appeal.
What are the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs?	The elements are: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.
What are the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs?	The elements are: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Mercado serves as a reminder of the importance of proper procedures in drug cases, while also acknowledging that the ultimate goal is to ensure the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. The ruling provides valuable guidance for law enforcement and the judiciary in handling drug-related offenses.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People v. Mercado, G.R. No. 207988, March 11, 2015