CASE DIGEST

Admissibility of Illegally Seized Evidence

GR No. 207988, Mar 11, 2015
PEOPLE V. MERCADO

FACTS:
Brian Sarmiento Mercado was charged of violation of sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA
No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002

Version of the Prosecution

That on or about the 27th day of July 2007,a tip from a confidential informant that
Mercado was selling shabu, the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Unit (SAID-SOU)
of the Philippine National Police (PNP) organized a buy-bust operation. The above named
accused handed to SPO3 Ramon Galvez, who posed as a buyer, a plastic sachet of shabu
weighing 0.2 grams. After the sale was condected between them, Galvez introduced himself as
police officer and arrested Mercado. Thereafter, they brought Mercado and the confiscated
items to the SAID-SOU office in Caloocan City, and turned them over to the investigator, PO2
[Randulfo] Hipolito, who prepared the corresponding evidence acknowledgment receipt and
request for laboratory examination.

Version of the Defense

Mercado was walking home after he put his jeep on the garage. While walking, a jeep
with police officers suddenly stopped in front of him and asked where he came from. He
presented his driver’s license. After that, he was then forced to ride in the jeepney where he
saw eight (8) persons in handcuffs. He was brought to the police station and was told to
produce ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) in exchange for his liberty, otherwise, a case would
be filed against him. Unable to produce the money, accused-appellant faced the present
charges

RTC – The RTC convicted the accused of the crimes charged against him. The trial court
concluded that the evidence presented by the prosecution sufficiently satisfied the
requirements to convict Mercado. It declared that the fact of sale was sufficiently
established upon showing the complete detailed manner of negotiation of said sale,
exchange of consideration, and handing of the subject of the sale.

CA – The CA affirmed the decision of the lower court. The prosecution was able to
sufficiently provided the evidence for Mercado’s conviction of the crime of illegal sale and
illegal possession of such drugs. It is well-settle that an accused reject the evidence from
the court, he must state his objection by providing substantial evidence that would satisfy
such objection.

The accused appealed before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not he RTC and the CA erred in finding that the evidence of the prosecution was
sufficient to convict the accused of the alleged sale and possession of shabu in violation of
section 5 and 11, respectively, of R.A 9165.

RULING:
The SC upheld the decision of the RTC and the CA.
In this case, the accused challenges the credibility of the evidences brought by the
prosecution. The court ruled that there is no valid reason to depart from the time-honored
doctrine that where the issue is one of the credibility of the witnesses, and in the case of their
testimonies as well, the findings of the trial court are not to be disturbed unless the
consideration of certain facts of substance and value which have been plainly overlooked,
might affect the result of the case.
From the evidence presented by the prosecution, the court found no question as to the
integrity of their evidence against accused-appellant from the time of buy-bust operation up
until the presentation of inventory on the seized drug. The accused cannot deny allegations to
him since he failed to present contrary and convincing evidence to prove otherwise the
conviction.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The CA Decision is AFFIRMED in all respects.

Privacy of Communication and Correspondence

G.R. No. 160792, Aug. 25, 2005
ALEJANO V. CABUAY

FACTS:
Early morning of 27 July 2003, some 321 armed soldiers, led by the now detained junior
officers, entered and took control of the Oakwood Premier Luxury Apartments (“Oakwood”).
The soldiers disarmed the security officers of Oakwood and planted explosive devices in its
immediate surroundings. The junior officers publicly renounced their support for the
administration and called for the resignation of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and several
cabinet members. Around 7:00 p.m. of the same date, the soldiers voluntarily surrendered to
the authorities after several negotiations with government emissaries. The soldiers later
defused the explosive devices they had earlier planted. The soldiers then returned to their
barracks. Gen. Abaya, as the Chief of Staff of the AFP, issued a directive to all the Major
Service Commanders to turn over custody of ten junior officers to the ISAFP Detention Center.
The transfer took place while military and civilian authorities were investigating the soldiers’
involvement in the Oakwood incident.
Government prosecutors filed an Information for coup d’etat with the RTC against the
soldiers involved in the Oakwood incident.
Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus from Supreme Court. And was
granted for their appearance in the Court of Appeals.
The CA rendered its decision ordered Gen. Cabuay, who was in charge of implementing
the regulations in the ISAFP Detention Center, to uphold faithfully the rights of the detainees in
accordance with Standing Operations Procedure No. 0263-04. The appellate court directed
Gen. Cabuay to adhere to his commitment made in court regarding visiting hours and the
detainees’ right to exercise for two hours a day.
The appellate court declared that while the opening and reading of Trillanes’ letter is an
abhorrent violation of his right to privacy of communication, this does not justify the issuance of
a writ of habeas corpus. The violation does not amount to illegal restraint, which is the proper
subject of habeas corpus proceedings.

ISSUE:
Whether the opening, inspection and reading of the letter of the detainees is an
infringement of a citizen’s privacy rights.

RULING:
The SC do not agree with the CA that the opening and reading of the detainees’ letters
violated the detainees’ right to privacy of communication. The letters were not in a sealed
envelope. The inspection of the folded letters is a valid measure as it serves the same purpose
as the opening of sealed letters for the inspection of contraband. The letters alleged to have
been read by the ISAFP authorities were not confidential letters between the detainees and
their lawyers. The petitioner who received the letters from detainees Trillanes and
Maestrecampo was merely acting as the detainees’ personal courier and not as their counsel
when he received the letters for mailing.
In the present case, since the letters were not confidential communication between the
detainees and their lawyers, the officials of the ISAFP Detention Center could read the letters.
If the letters are marked confidential communication between the detainees and their lawyers,
the detention officials should not read the letters but only open the envelopes for inspection in
the presence of the detainees.
The right to privacy of those detained is subject to Section 4 of RA 7438, as well as to
the limitations inherent in lawful detention or imprisonment. By the very fact of their detention,
pre-trial detainees and convicted prisoners have a diminished expectation of privacy rights.
The detainees in the present case are junior officers accused of leading 300 soldiers in
committing coup d’etat, a crime punishable with reclusion perpetua. The junior officers are not
ordinary detainees but visible leaders of the Oakwood incident involving an armed takeover of
a civilian building in the heart of the financial district of the country.
As members of the military armed forces, the detainees are subject to the Articles of
War. Moreover, the junior officers are detained with other high-risk persons from the Abu
Sayyaf and the NPA. Thus, we must give the military custodian a wider range of deference in
implementing the regulations in the ISAFP Detention Center. The military custodian is in a
better position to know the security risks involved in detaining the junior officers, together with
the suspected Abu Sayyaf and NPA members. Since the appropriate regulations depend
largely on the security risks involved, we should defer to the regulations adopted by the military
custodian in the absence of patent arbitrariness.
WHEREFORE, the SC DISMISS the petition. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is
hereby AFFIRMED.