MANUEL QUILET Y FAJARDO @ “TONTING,” PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT..

Quilet versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is the case of Quilet versus People of the Philippines, decided by the Supreme Court in September 2020. Manuel Quilet, nicknamed Tonting, was convicted of illegal possession of dangerous drugs after a sachet of dried marijuana leaves was found in the padding of the bra he was wearing during a visit to the Manila City Jail. He asks the Supreme Court to reverse his conviction. The case matters because it tests two things every drug prosecution must prove: that the search which produced the evidence was lawful, and that the identity and integrity of the seized drug were preserved from seizure to laboratory examination. It also applies the jail bureau's own standard operating procedure on body searches, and the witness requirement of the dangerous drugs law.

Procedural History

Quilet was charged before Branch 23 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila. After trial, the trial court convicted him and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of thirteen years and one day, as minimum, to fourteen years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of three hundred thousand pesos. The marijuana was forfeited in favor of the State and ordered destroyed. Quilet appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in a decision dated 12 July 2018, and denied his motion for reconsideration in a resolution dated 12 September 2018. Quilet then filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, which is the decision now before us.

Facts

On 7 October 2014, Quilet went to the Manila City Jail to visit his boyfriend, who was an inmate. Before he could enter, Jail Officer 3 Gregorio Leonor inspected his belongings and subjected him to a body search. Quilet was wearing a bra. The officer asked him to pull up his shirt and to remove the padding of the bra. Inside the padding, the officer found an open plastic sachet containing suspected dried marijuana leaves.

The officer confiscated the sachet and marked it. He informed Quilet of his rights and turned the items over to the investigator, Jail Officer 2 Edgar Taoc. The investigator prepared the referral for inquest, the booking sheet, the chain of custody form, the request for laboratory examination, and the incident report. He conducted the inventory in the presence of Jail Officer 3 Dominador Noe, who took photographs. The items were delivered to the crime laboratory, and the examination confirmed that they were marijuana.

Quilet denied the charge. He admitted that the sachet was found in the padding of his bra, but claimed he did not know who owned it. He argued that as a regular visitor he knew a body search was conducted before entry, so it would be illogical for him to bring prohibited items. The trial court and the Court of Appeals nonetheless convicted him, and he brought the matter to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the sachet of marijuana was inadmissible as the fruit of an unlawful search, because the strip search of Quilet violated the prescribed procedure.
• Whether or not the irregularities in the marking and in the conduct of the inventory destroyed the identity and integrity of the seized item.
• Whether or not the prosecution overcame the constitutional presumption of innocence of the accused.

Applicable Provisions

The decision applies the guidelines on strip searches under the jail bureau's Standard Operating Procedure Number 2010-05, which provides:

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.

This provision fixes the threshold for escalating a search from a pat or frisk to a strip search, and the Court found that threshold was never met.

The same procedure requires, for every strip search, that the search be authorized and that the visitor consent in writing:

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 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.

These requirements were not complied with, and the Court held that this alone negates the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty.

The decision also applies the chain of custody requirement of Section 21 of Republic Act Number 9165, as amended by Republic Act Number 10640, which requires the marking, inventory, and photographing of seized items in the presence of the accused and of certain required witnesses, namely an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media. The Court held that the absence of these witnesses, without a justifiable reason, cast doubt on the corpus delicti, the very body of the offense.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled in favor of Quilet. Asking him to pull up his shirt and remove the padding of his bra was a strip search, because it involved the visual inspection of a partially disrobed person. The records showed no suspicious conduct on his part that could have created probable cause to escalate the search. Even assuming probable cause existed, the jail officers failed to secure the knowledge and direction of the Jail Warden, failed to accomplish the authorization form, and failed to obtain Quilet's written waiver. Following its earlier ruling in Tuates versus People, the Court held that this failure rebuts the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, and is by itself enough to acquit on reasonable doubt.

On the second issue, the Court found material discrepancies in the marking. The information and the dispositive portion of the trial court decision referred to a sachet marked with the date of the incident, while the chain of custody and inventory sheets showed a different marking. The Court stressed that marking is the starting point of the custodial link, and that the prosecution, the trial court, and the appellate court could not even agree on what the true marking was. This cast a shadow of doubt on the identity and integrity of the seized item.

On the third issue, the Court held that the prosecution failed to justify the absence of the required witnesses. The inventory was witnessed only by fellow jail officers, and the investigator's explanation that they looked for a barangay official and went to the fiscal's office late in the day was not a serious effort. The Court ruled that mere statements of unavailability, absent actual earnest attempts to contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable. With these findings, the constitutional presumption of innocence prevailed.

Doctrine

A strip search of a jail visitor may be conducted only after a pat, frisk, or rub search yields probable cause that contraband is being hidden, and only with the knowledge and direction of the Jail Warden, a written authorization, and the visitor's written waiver. Failure to observe these safeguards rebuts the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and justifies acquittal on reasonable doubt. Marking of the seized item must be prompt and proper, because it is the starting point of the chain of custody and serves to prevent switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. Finally, the absence of the witnesses required by Section 21 of Republic Act Number 9165, as amended, does not per se render the seized items inadmissible, but the prosecution must show a justifiable reason or genuine and sufficient effort to secure their presence.

Disposition

The petition was granted, the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals were reversed and set aside, and Quilet was acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt and ordered immediately released, with the seized marijuana turned over to the Dangerous Drugs Board for destruction.

Remember This

Memorize this line: vigilance in eradicating illegal drugs must never come at the expense of disregarding the law, the rules, and established jurisprudence. Examiners use this case to test the limits of a jail strip search and the consequences of a defective marking and a missing witness under the dangerous drugs law.