G.R. No. 248350 . December 05, 2022
JOEMARIE MENDOZA Y BUCAD ALIAS “JOE”, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

On April 15, 2016, police operatives implemented Search Warrant SW-16-288-MN, issued by a Malabon City RTC against Jay Tan, at a house on Curie Street, Barangay Palanan, Makati City. The operatives broke into the house and found petitioner Joemarie Mendoza inside a room on the ground floor, sitting on the floor, holding a pen gun, with one plastic sachet containing shabu and two glass pipes (improvised tooters) in front of him. Petitioner was arrested. The police marked the seized items, conducted an inventory in the presence of a Barangay Kagawad, and took photographs. A subsequent laboratory examination confirmed the sachet contained methamphetamine hydrochloride. Petitioner was charged with violations of Sections 11 (Possession of Dangerous Drugs) and 12 (Possession of Drug Paraphernalia), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted petitioner, ruling his arrest was valid as he was caught in plain view and the corpus delicti was established. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction, holding petitioner lacked standing to question the search warrant issued against Jay Tan and that the items were in his immediate possession. Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the search warrant was invalid for violating the one-specific-offense rule, rendering the evidence inadmissible, and that the police failed to comply with the witness requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165 during inventory.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the conviction of petitioner for violations of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of RA 9165.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the CA Decision and Resolution and ACQUITTED petitioner.
The Court held that the search warrant was invalid as it contravened the constitutional and statutory rule that a warrant must issue for only one specific offense. The warrant in question was issued for “violation of R.A. 9165 and Illegal Possession of Firearms,” which are two distinct offenses. Consequently, all evidence obtained by virtue of this invalid warrant, including the items seized from petitioner, were inadmissible as “fruits of the poisonous tree.”
The Court rejected the CA’s ruling that petitioner could not question the warrant. While a search warrant is generally a personal challenge, petitioner’s rights were directly impaired as the police gained entry to the premises and discovered him solely under the authority of the invalid warrant. His warrantless arrest, allegedly for being caught in flagrante delicto, was also invalidated because the police would not have been inside the house to witness any alleged criminal act without the invalid warrant. The plain view doctrine was inapplicable as the police’s presence was not lawful.
Furthermore, the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody. The police did not comply with Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended. The required witnesses—an elected public official, a representative from the Department of Justice, and a representative from the media—were not present during the inventory and photographing of the seized items at the place of arrest. Only a Barangay Kagawad was present. The prosecution offered no justifiable reason for this lapse, which compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. The corpus delicti of the crimes was therefore not proven beyond reasonable doubt.