THIRD DIVISION
G.R.No. 242118, September 02, 2020
MANUEL QUILET Y FAJARDO @ "TONTING," Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
ZALAMEDA, J.:
While the Court supports the government's efforts to combat the proliferation of illegal drugs in Philippine society, We maintain the importance of abiding by the procedural safeguards in all drug-related cases. Vigilance in eradicating illegal drugs must not come at the expense of disregarding the law, rules, and established jurisprudence on the matter.1chanrobleslaw
That on or about October 07, 2014, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused not having been authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did[,] then and there[,] willfully, unlawfully[,] and knowingly have in his possession and under his custody and control one (1) opened transparent plastic sachet[,] marked as "GTL 07-10-14[,]" containing ZERO POINT ONE FIVE SEVEN TWO (0.1572) of dried Marijuana leaves and fruiting tops, a dangerous drug.Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty. Pre-trial and trial on the merits then ensued.6
Contrary to law.5
WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused, MANUEL QUILET y FAJARDO @ "Tonting" is hereby found GUILTY of the crime charged and is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of Thirteen (13) years and one (1) day, as minimum to Fourteen (14) years, as maximum and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00).Petitioner appealed his conviction to the CA.
The one (1) opened transparent plastic sachet marked as "GTL-07-10-14" containing ZERO POINT ONE FIVE SEVEN TWO (0.1572) of dried Marijuana leaves and fruiting tops, subject of the instant case, is hereby forfeited in favor of the State and ordered destroyed immediately pursuant to existing Rules. Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
JO3 Leonor III performed the frisk and body search in accordance with BJMP SOP No. 2010-05, which states that all visitors allowed entry into the jail must be required to submit to a thorough body search to prevent entry of contraband inside the jails. Searches must not be more extensive than necessary to determine the existence of contraband believed to be concealed on the subject of the person.Furthermore, the CA agreed with the RTC that contrary to petitioner's argument, the identity and integrity of the seized dangerous drug had not been compromised despite the police officers' non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21, RA9165.13
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE PETITIONER'S CONVICTION DESPITE THE INADMISSIBILITY OF THE ALLEGEDLY CONFISCATED DRUG FOR BEING FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE.The controversy boils down to whether or not the arresting officers observed the proper procedure in the handling and custody of the seized drugs, ultimately convicting petitioner for the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs.II.
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE PETITIONER'S CONVICTION DESPITE THE IRREGULARITIES IN THE MARKING AND CONDUCT OF THE INVENTORY OF THE ALLEGEDLY CONFISCATED ITEM.III
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE PETITIONER'S CONVICTION DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AFFORDED TO PETITIONER BY THE CONSTITUTION.15
The proliferation of contraband in jail facilities is a perennial problem that the BJMP is confronting since its inception. Contraband in the hands of inmates jeopardize jail security and hamper rehabilitation programs.The avowed purpose and scope of the SOP is "to provide adequate safeguards against the introduction of contraband into jail facilities and to establish guidelines for different types of searches."17
The use of various types of searches shall be necessary to protect the safety of visitors, inmates[,] and personnel. It shall be used to detect and secure contraband with the aim of safeguarding the security of the facility.xxxx
While the conduct of various types of searches is indispensible [sic] in our campaign to prevent the entry of contraband, it should be reasonably implemented with utmost care and fairness to protect, the rights of the subject[,] as well as to shield the jail personnel from harassment complaints.
These general policies reiterate that the search of both the belongings and persons of jail visitors serves these main purposes: institutional security and as a condition for admission of a visitor into the jail facility.
- All visitors before being allowed entry into the jail must be requested to submit the things they carry to a thorough inspection and a thorough body search to prevent the entry of contraband/s in our jails.
- . xxxx All visitors who refuse to undergo search and inspection shall be refused entry into the jail.
Pat/Frisk Search - is a search wherein the officer pats or squeezes the subject's clothing to attempt to detect contraband/s. For same gender searches the Pat/Frisk search is normally accomplished in concert with Rub Search.Each type of body search is covered by procedures discussed in great detail in the SOP.19 The same document likewise directs when a search may escalate from a pat/frisk/rub search to a strip search:20
Rub Search - is a search wherein the officer rubs and/or pats the subject's body over the clothing, but in a more intense and thorough manner. In a rub search, the genital, buttocks, and breast (of females) areas are carefully rubbed - areas which are not searched in a frisk/pat search. Rub searches shall not be conducted on cross-gender individuals, (emphasis supplied)
Strip Search - is a search which involves the visual inspection of disrobed or partially disrobed subject.
Visual Body Cavity Search - is a search which involves the inspection of the anus and/or vaginal area, generally requiring the subject to bend over and spread the cheeks of the buttocks; to squat and/or otherwise expose body cavity orifices.
If during the pat/frisk/rub search the jail officer develops probable cause that contraband is being hidden by the subject who is not likely to be discovered, the Jail Officer shall request for a conduct of strip search/visual body cavity search.In this case, JO3 Leonor asked petitioner to pull up his shirt, thereby disrobing him partially. As such, this search falls under the second type — the Strip Search - or a search involving the "visual inspection of disrobed or partially disrobed subject." It should be noted, however, that there is nothing on record that petitioner acted in a suspicious manner which could have allowed JO3 Leonor to "develop probable cause," and escalate the search from pat/frisk/rub to strip search.
1. All strip search shall be conducted with the knowledge of and directed by the Jail Warden or in his absence by the Deputy Warden/ Jail Officer of the Day. A Strip Search/ Visual Body Cavity Search Authorization (SSVBCSA) (Annex A) shall be accomplished by the searcher for this purpose. The SSVBCSA Form shall include information that there is probable cause that contraband is being hidden by the subject or subject to be strip searched is suspected of bringing contraband inside the jail. It shall particularly state the source of information, if known, and the contraband to be brought in.
2. The visitor agrees to be strip searched which shall be in writing to shield the jail officer performing the search from harassment complaints. For this purpose, the Waiver of Right on Strip Search / Visual Body Cavity Search Form (Annex B) shall be signed by the visitor. It shall be duly explained by the jail personnel performing the search and should be understood by the subject. If the subject refuses, he/she will not be allowed to visit, (emphases supplied)
3. All strip search must be done in the confidentiality of an enclosed space. This area must restrict the possibility of visual access by person(s) not involved in the search.
4. To perform a strip search the jail officer shall accomplish the following:5. If during the course of the strip search, the officer develops probable cause that contraband is concealed in an area not readily visible during the strip search, the officer shall proceed on conducting Visual Body Cavity Search.
- Direct the subject to remove his/her clothing and hand the clothing to the searcher for inspection.
- Clothing shall be examined by touch, using the squeeze and rub method which crushes every part of the clothing.
- Articles should be scanned for bulges and signs of openings or freshly sewn areas. Linings should not be overlooked.
- The searcher shall have the subject perform the following measures:cralawred
- Hold his/her hands out in front of his/her body with fingers spread;
- Turn his/her hands over showing the officer each side;
- Raise his/her arms over head allowing the officer to view the subject's underarms;
- Shake out his/her hair;
- Open his/her mouth with head tilted back. Lifting his/her tongue;
- Have the subject lift his/Tier feet so that the soles and spaces between the toes can be examined carefully.
- Inspection of any covered wounds, casts, false teeth, prosthesis, etc. shall be conducted with the assistance of a jail doctor or nurse.
- After completion of the search, the officer shall return the clothing to the subject and allow the subject to redress.
xxx To emphasize anew, BJMP-SOP 2010-05 requires pat/frisk searches and rub searches to be done over the jail visitor's clothing Bundang admitted twice that what she instead did was to raise Tuates' shirt. This she cannot do, for a strip search may be resorted to only "[i]f during the pat/frisk/rub search[,] the jail officer develops probable cause that contraband is being hidden by the subject which is not likely to be discovered." Further, a strip search may only be done after the visitor agrees in writing, which is a requirement to shield the jail officer performing the search from harassment complaints.Following Tuates v. People, the arresting officers could not be accorded the benefit of the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duty. The foregoing findings alone are enough to acquit petitioner based on reasonable doubt. However, after going over the records with a fine-toothed comb, the Court found even more fatal flaws in the prosecution's evidence.
xxx [Since] the search conducted by Bundang was clearly not in accordance with BJMP-SOP 2010-05. From this alone, the presumption that she performed her duties in a regular manner was thus unmistakably rebutted.
The absence of the witnesses required by law does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible. However, a justifiable reason for such absence, or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the presence of the required witnesses, must be adduced. The prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the witnesses enumerated in the law. Mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable as justifiable grounds for non-compliance.36
Q: And you also conducted the inventory at the gate? A: Yes sir. Q: Is JO3 Edna Iglesia a barangay elected official? A: No sir. Q: How about JO3 Dominador Noe? A: No sir. Q: How about Manuel Quilet is he a barangay official? A: No sir. Q: No barangay official and you did not call any barangay official? A: At that time we looked for barangay official. Q: That is 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon. How about going to the Office of the Prosecutor to ask for a witness, did you do that, calling the Office of the Prosecutor? A: It was already night time when we went to the Fiscal's Office. xxxTHE COURT Q: Officer Leonor, when you marked the sachet of marijuana, who were present? A: The accused and my co-employees. Q: You are referring to Edna Iglesia, Dominador Noe, Inspector Vargas? A: Yes Your Honor. Q: They were the ones who witnessed the inventory? A: Yes ma'am.35
Very truly yours, | |
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG III | |
Division Clerk of Court |
TO: | The Director | |
BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS | ||
1770 Muntinlupa City | ||
Thru: | The Superintendent | |
New Bilibid Prison | ||
BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS | ||
1770 Muntinlupa City |
"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition is hereby GRANTED. The 12 July 2018 Decision and 12 September 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 38852 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, petitioner Manuel Quilet y Fajardo @ "Tonting" is ACQUITTED of the offense charged on the ground of reasonable doubt. He is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless he is detained for any other lawful cause.NOW, THEREFORE, You are hereby ordered to immediately release MANUEL QUILET y FAJARDO @ "TONTING" unless there are other lawful causes for which he should be further detained, and to return this Order with the certificate of your proceedings within five (5) days from notice hereof.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to IMPLEMENT this Decision and to report to this Court the action taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt.
The Regional Trial Court is DIRECTED to turn over the seized marijuana to the Dangerous Drugs Board for destruction in accordance with law.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court: | |
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG III | |
Division Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
1People v. Dayon, G.R. No. 229669, 27 November 2019.
2Rollo, pp. 33-44; penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela, and concurred in by Associate Justices Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla (now a Member of this Court) and Carmelita Salandanan Manahan of the Special Sixteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3 Id. at 46-47.
4 Id. at 68-75; penned by Presiding Judge Caroline Rivera-Colasito.
5 Id. at 34.
6 Id.
7 Id. at 34-35; CA Decision, pp. 2-3; Footnotes omitted.
8 Id.
9 Id at 35; CA Decision, p. 3; Footnotes omitted.
10 Id.
11 Id. at 36; CA Decision, p. 4.
12 Id. at 39; CA Decision, p. 7.
13 Id. at 42-43; CA Decision, pp, 10-11; Footnotes omitted.
14 Id. at 47.
15 Id. at 21-22.
16 G.R. No. 230789, 10 April 2019, penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa.
17 BJMP SOP No. 2010-05 (2010), II. Purpose and Scope.
18See Definition of Terms, BJMP SOP No. 2010-05.
19 Section VI for the Conduct of Pat/Frisk/Rub Search for Visitors; Section VII for the Conduct of Strip Search for Visitors; and Section VIII for the Conduct of Visual Body Cavity Search for Visitors, BJMP SOP No. 2Q10-05.
20 Paragraph 3, of Section VI, Guidelines in the Conduct of Pat/Frisk/Rub Search for Visitors, BJMP SOP No. 2010-05.
21Supra note 13.
22Rollo, p. 34; CA Decision, p. 2.
23 Id at 42; CA Decision, p. 10.
24 Id. at 71; RTC Decision, p .4.
25 Id. at 110.
26 Id. at 68.
27 Records, p. 21.
28 Id. at 37.
29People v. Dahil, 750 Phil.L 212-239 (2015); G.R. No. 212196, 12 January 2015, 745 SCRA 221,241.
30People v. Ismael, 806 Phil 21-38 (2017); G.R. No. 208093, 20 February 2017, 818 SCRA 122 citing People v. Coreche, 612 Phil. 1238,1 244 (2009); 596 SCRA 350, 14 August 2009.
31People v. Climaco, 687 Phil. 593-610 (2012); G.R. No. 199403, 13 June 2012.
32 In People v. Gutierrez (G.R. No. 236304, 05 November 2018, 884 SCRA 276), this Court noted that RA 10640 was approved on 15 July 2014, and published on 23 July 2014 in The Philippine Star (Vol. XXVIII, No. 359, Metro Section, p. 21) and the Manila Bulletin (Vol. 499, No. 23, World News Section, p. 6). Thus, it became effective 15 days thereafter or on 07 August 2014, pursuant to Section 5 of the law,
33Supra note 1.
34 Records, p. 37.
35 TSN, 17 September 2015, pp. 9-10.
36Ramos v. People, G.R. No. 233572. 30 July 2018, 874 SCRA 595, 599.
37Supra note 1.