Mallillin v. People

On February 4, 2003, five police officers served a search warrant on Junie Mallillin's house in Barangay Tugos, Sorsogon City. A barangay kagawad, Mallillin, his wife and his mother were present. The search allegedly yielded two sachets of shabu (0.0743 gram in all) and five empty sachets with residue. He was charged with possession under Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165. PO3 Esternon conducted the search alone. He said he found the filled sachets under a pillow that Mallillin himself handed him, and that he gave the items to SPO2 Gallinera to be recorded and marked. He brought them to the police station for a “true inventory,” then to the court and the laboratory. The forensic chemist testified that a Mrs. Ofelia Garcia, not she, received the items at the laboratory. The defense testified as follows. Mallillin was sent out to buy cigarettes during the search. A lady officer searched his wife after an officer claimed she had tucked something into her underwear, and only Esternon stayed in the room. The filled sachets were “found” just after Mallillin returned. The kagawad testified that Esternon, alone in the bedroom, announced the find about three minutes after the kagawad stepped out. The RTC convicted Mallillin, relying on the presumption of animus possidendi and the lack of ill motive. The Court of Appeals affirmed with a modified sentence of 12 to 17 years.

1. 1Whether the identity and integrity of the seized drugs were established beyond reasonable doubt.
2. 2Whether the presumption that the police regularly performed their duties sustains the conviction.

Acquitted (Tinga, J.). In drug cases the dangerous drug is the corpus delicti. It must be proved with moral certainty that the substance offered in court is the same one seized. The chain-of-custody rule authenticates the evidence through testimony about every link, from the moment the item is picked up to its offer in evidence. Each person who touched it must describe how and from whom he received it, where it was kept, what happened to it, and the precautions taken against change or substitution. The standard is stricter for items that are not readily identifiable, such as narcotics, which are fungible and open to tampering or substitution. Here, Gallinera, who recorded and marked the sachets, and Garcia, who received them at the laboratory, were not presented, and no explanation was given. Nothing therefore ruled out substitution of the filled sachets or of the residue sachets. The search was also riddled with irregularities. Mallillin was sent on an errand even though guards had been posted to stop him from fleeing. The sachets surfaced right after he returned. It was improbable that he would hand over a pillow hiding drugs. The body search of his wife diverted the household's attention, and Esternon was present during it. Section 21 of the IRR of R.A. 9165 requires inventory and photographing at the place where a warrant is served, and no justification was offered for doing it at the station. The items were also not delivered to the issuing court with a verified inventory, as Rule 126, Section 12 mandates. The presumption of regularity is disputable. It cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence. In dubio pro reo.