Tuates y Chico v. People
Tuates y Chico v. People
DECISION
CAGUIOA , J : p
The Facts
After trial on the merits, in its Decision 1 0 dated February 10, 2014, the RTC
convicted Tuates of the crime charged. The dispositive portion of the said Decision
reads:
IN VIEW THEREOF, accused PERLY TUATES y CHICO is found GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 11 of R.A. 9165 and is hereby
sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from Twelve (12) Years
and One (1) Day to Fourteen (14) Years and to pay a fine of Php300,000.00.
The one (1) plastic sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride weighing
.105 gram is confiscated in favor of the government. 1 1
From the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, namely (1) Katehlene 1 2
Bundang (Bundang), (2) PO2 Virgilio Fennolar 1 3 (PO2 Fennolar), (3) PO2 Gabby Raboy,
the RTC concluded that the evidence su ciently established all the elements of the
crime charged. The RTC held that the prosecution established an "unbroken link in the
chain of custody of the plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance which
when examined [tested] positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride." 1 4
Aggrieved, Tuates appealed to the CA.
Ruling of the CA
In the questioned Decision 1 5 dated October 27, 2016, the CA a rmed the RTC's
conviction of Tuates, holding that the prosecution was able to prove the elements of
the crimes charged. The CA also held that the prosecution was able to present an
unbroken chain of custody in handling the confiscated item. It reasoned as follows:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
In reality, it is almost impossible to obtain a perfect and an unbroken
chain of custody. Thus, failure to strictly comply with Section 21(1), Article II of
R.A. No. 9165 does not necessarily render an accused person's arrest illegal or
the items seized or con scated from him inadmissible. The most important
factor is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items. In this case, the prosecution was able to demonstrate that the integrity
and evidentiary value of the seized prohibited drug had not been compromised
because it established the crucial link in the chain of custody of the seized
items from the time it was rst discovered until it was brought to the court for
examination.
Tout court, the prosecution was able to preserve unscathed and establish
the identity of the corpus delicti. First, Bundang found the illegal drug in the
appellant's possession. Second, Bundang marked the seized item with her
initials "KAB" at the O ce of the Provincial Jail Warden. Third, the dangerous
drug was personally brought by Bundang and Fennolar to the SOCO for
laboratory examination. Fourth, PO2 Gabby Raboy (Raboy) received the subject
specimen from Fennolar. Fifth, Raboy turned it over to Forensic Chemist Arlyn
Dascil-Cañete for laboratory examination. Sixth, the seized item was found
positive for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. Clearly, the
succession of events established by evidence and the overall handling of the
seized items by speci ed individuals all show that the evidence seized were the
same evidence subsequently identified and testified to in open court. 1 6 HEITAD
The CA thus a rmed the conviction of Tuates. She then sought reconsideration
17of the Decision on December 2, 2016, which however was denied by the CA in a
Resolution 1 8 dated March 14, 2017.
Thus, the present Petition.
Issue
For resolution of the Court is the issue of whether the RTC and the CA erred in
convicting Tuates of the crime charged.
The appeal is meritorious. The Court acquits Tuates for failure of the prosecution
to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Tuates was charged with the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs,
de ned and penalized under Section 11 of RA 9165. To convict a person under this
charge, the prosecution must prove the following: (1) the accused is in possession of
an item or object, which is identi ed 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. 1 9
There is reasonable doubt, however, in the presence of the third element in this
case — that the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.
Tuates' defense is essentially that the seized item was merely planted on her by
the jail guard who frisked her. Bundang, the jail guard, however, claims otherwise.
Bundang avers that she found the seized item tucked in Tuates' underwear as she
frisked the latter. Considering the con icting statements of the parties, the lower
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
courts resolved the case in favor of the prosecution in light of (1) the presumption of
regularity in the performance of duties accorded to Bundang, and (2) lack of showing
that the police officers had ill motive in imputing the crime to Tuates.
The Court reverses the rulings of both the RTC and the CA. As the Court said in
Mallillin v. People, 2 0 "the blind reliance by the [RTC] and the [CA] on the presumption of
regularity in the conduct of police duty is manifestly misplaced. The presumption of
regularity is merely just that — a mere presumption disputable by contrary
proof and which when challenged by the evidence cannot be regarded as
binding truth ." 2 1 Verily, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty
cannot overcome the stronger presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. 2 2
The presumption of regularity in the performance of duty cannot arise in the
present case because Bundang did not follow the prescribed procedure in searching or
frisking Tuates. According to the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology Standard
Operating Procedures Number 2010-05 (BJMP-SOP 2010-05) dated September 16,
2010 on the conduct of body searches on jail visitors, the search on jail visitors should
be conducted in the following manner: ATICcS
V. GENERAL POLICY
1. Searches are to be conducted in the least intrusive manner,
while ensuring accomplishment of the intended purpose, yet
maintaining respect for individual dignity and insuring the greatest
level of privacy. Personnel performing searches shall not be allowed
to talk/discuss the search they performed unless directed by the
court or warden.
2. 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.
3. Money, jewelry, gadgets and other commodities of exchange shall
be duly turned over to the Property Custodian for receipting and
eventual safekeeping in a safety vault or box. It shall be duly
returned to the visitor upon his or her exit from the jail facility. All
visitors who refuse to undergo search and inspection shall be
refused entry into the jail.
4. All male visitors shall be searched by male jail o cers while female
visitors shall be searched by female jail o cers only. At no instance
that a female homosexual jail o cer shall be allowed to conduct
body search on female jail visitors while a male homosexual jail
o cer cannot body search a male jail visitor. Further, no person of
the opposite sex shall be allowed to conduct or view strip searches.
5. In performing searches, sanitary gloves shall be worn by the jail
officer.
6. The search should not be more extensive than necessary to
determine the existence of contraband believed to be
concealed on the subject.
7. Strip search and Visual Body Cavity Search shall only be conducted
inside a searching room that is adequately lighted, safe and
guarantees confidentiality.
VI. GUIDELINES IN THE CONDUCT OF PAT/FRISK/RUB SEARCH FOR
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
VISITORS
1. All inmates' visitors who want to enter the jail facility must be
subjected to body search and inspection of their belongings.
2. To perform a pat/frisk/rub search, the jail o cer shall accomplish
the following:
a. Instruct the subject to remove items from pockets,
shoes, jackets, or any extra clothing.
b. Search the subject top to bottom being systematic:
1. Shake out his/her hair.
2. Grasp the collar and feel for any hidden items.
3. Search each of the arms separately.
4. Run hands down the shirt front, checking the pocket
and stopping at the beltline. Then check the back
using the same process.
5. Once satis ed that all areas above the waist — the
neck, arms, chest, and back are clear, check the
waistline to feel for any small articles hidden.TIADCc
Q The reason why you searched her and you brought her inside the
searching room, and you searched her, right?
A Yes, sir.
Q Madam Witness, do you know that the very reason of searching anybody
to see to it that there was no dangerous weapon tucked inside their body,
nor anything else, right?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, Madam Witness, you said you half-stripped the accused,
you removed her t-shirt?
A I raised, sir.
Q So, without you Madam Witness touching her body, you would
not had (sic) discovered those things, right?
A Yes, sir.
Q And without you also inserting your hand inside the panty or the
pants, you would not have discovered those thing (sic) , right?
A Yes, sir.
Q But if you will just searched (sic) her with the clothes on Madam Witness
as if it would be a normal lady without anything illegal inside the body,
correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q But you are very suspicious that she is involved in drug, you would not
searched (sic) her?
A Yes, sir, all the visitors coming in.
COURT TO WITNESS:
Q What is the procedure for searching, you have to remove the
clothes?
A No, your Honor. I just raised her t-shirt.
Q Why do you have to raise the clothes?
A I did not raise, I just inserted my hand, your Honor.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
Q Are you allowed to insert your hand? SDAaTC
Footnotes
* On leave.
1. Rollo, pp. 11-31.
2. Id. at 32-40. Penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, with Associate Justices
Franchito N. Diamante and Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan concurring.
3. Id. at 44 to 44-A.
4. Id. at 101-110. Penned by Judge Josefina D. Farrales.
5. AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002,
REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS
DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDFNG FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
PURPOSES, approved on June 7, 2002.
6. Rollo, pp. 46-47.
7. Id. at 46.
8. Id. at 33.
9. Id. at 33-34.
10. Id. at 101-110.
11. Id. at 110.
12. Also referred to as "Kathleen" and "Katehlene Carl" in some parts of the rollo.
13. Also spelled as "Penullar" and "Fenollar" in some parts of the rollo.