In People of the Philippines v. Eutiquio Baer, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, emphasizing that mere presence or access to a container with illegal drugs isn’t enough to establish guilt. The prosecution failed to prove that Baer had control over the locked steel box containing the drugs, which belonged to another person. This ruling underscores the importance of proving actual dominion and control over illegal substances for a conviction of illegal possession. It also highlights the necessity of strict adherence to chain of custody rules to ensure the integrity of evidence in drug cases.

Locked Box, Uncertain Ownership: When Constructive Possession Doesn’t Stick

Eutiquio Baer, accused of violating Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. 9165, was charged with illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. The prosecution alleged that during a search of Baer’s rented stall, authorities found seven heat-sealed plastic bags of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), one small heat-sealed plastic bag of methamphetamine hydrochloride, and one hundred forty-two decks of small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride. These items were discovered inside a locked steel box. While the Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Baer for illegal possession, it acquitted him of illegal sale. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s conviction, leading Baer to appeal to the Supreme Court. The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether the RTC and CA erred in convicting Baer for violating Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, focusing on the element of possession.

The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions, acquitting Baer due to the prosecution’s failure to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that for a conviction of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, the prosecution must establish three elements: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. The Court found that the first element, possession, was not sufficiently proven, as there was no constructive possession of the illegal drugs on Baer’s part.

Possession under the law includes both actual and constructive possession. Actual possession exists when the drug is in the immediate physical possession or control of the accused. Constructive possession, on the other hand, exists when the drug is under the dominion and control of the accused, or when he has the right to exercise dominion and control over the place where it is found. In this case, the drugs were not found on Baer’s person, so the prosecution relied on the theory of constructive possession. However, the Court found that the prosecution failed to establish that Baer had dominion and control over the steel box containing the drugs.

The Court noted that Baer explicitly stated that the locked steel box was not his and that he had no knowledge of its contents. He also did not have the means to open it, as it belonged to one Ondo Notarte. Crucially, the prosecution did not refute that the steel box belonged to Notarte, not Baer, and that Baer could not open it. The key used to open the steel box did not come from Baer but from the authorities, further undermining the claim that Baer had control over the contents of the box. SPO1 dela Cruz admitted during cross-examination that Eufracio was ordered to get the key from the police station. Another witness, Gaviola, testified that a police officer handed the key that was used to open the steel box.

Adding to the doubt, PO3 Tavera testified that Baer was not even inside the rented stall when the search was conducted, raising further questions about his control over the steel box. This evidence contradicted the CA’s reliance on cases like People of the Philippines v. Torres, People of the Philippines v. Tira, and Abuan v. People of the Philippines, where the accused had dominion and control over the premises where the drugs were found. In those cases, the drugs were readily accessible. Here, the drugs were inside a locked and sealed receptacle that was not owned, controlled, or subject to the dominion of Baer. Therefore, the Court concluded that Baer did not constructively possess the drugs.

Even if Baer had constructively possessed the drugs, the Court found serious doubts regarding the integrity and evidentiary value of the drug specimens. In drug cases, the State must prove the corpus delicti, which is the body of the crime. The dangerous drug itself is the very corpus delicti of the violation. The law requires strict compliance with procedures to ensure rights are safeguarded, especially in anti-narcotics operations. Compliance with the chain of custody rule is crucial, as it ensures that the drug confiscated from the suspect is the same substance presented in court as evidence. Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, outlines the procedures police operatives must follow to maintain the integrity of confiscated drugs.

Section 21 requires that (1) the seized items be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation; and (2) the physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of (a) the accused or his/her representative or counsel, (b) an elected public official, (c) a representative from the media, and (d) a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), all of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy. The Court emphasized that the phrase “immediately after seizure and confiscation” means that the inventory and photographing should be made immediately after or at the place of apprehension.

In this case, the authorities failed to comply with several mandatory procedures. First, the inventory and marking of the evidence were not done immediately after the seizure. Second, the inventory was not conducted at or near the place of apprehension but at the municipal building. Third, the authorities did not photograph the evidence. Fourth, there were no representatives from the media and the DOJ to witness the operation. Fifth, the accused and his family were not given a copy of the inventory receipt, a violation of Section 21 of RA 9165. Sixth, the markings on the confiscated sachets did not indicate the date, time, and place of the operation, contravening the PNP’s own procedures.

The Court cited People v. Tomawis, explaining that the presence of witnesses from the DOJ, media, and public elective office is necessary to protect against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug. Without these witnesses, the evils of switching, “planting,” or contamination of evidence could occur. The Court reiterated that the accused has the constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and the burden of proof never shifts. The prosecution bears the burden of proving compliance with the procedure outlined in Section 21, as stressed in People v. Andaya.

Finally, the Court found that the third element of illegal possession—that the accused freely and consciously possessed the illegal drug—was also absent. Accused-appellant Baer testified that Notarte brought the steel box and asked to leave it at his stall, but he refused. The testimony was corroborated by Raul Solante, a defense witness. The Court found that accused-appellant Baer did not freely and consciously possess illegal drugs. At most, he consciously, but hesitantly, possessed Notarte’s steel box, the contents of which he had no knowledge, control, and access to whatsoever. The Court sternly reminded the trial and appellate courts to exercise extra vigilance in trying drug cases and directed the Philippine National Police to conduct an investigation on this incident and other similar cases.

The Court believes that the menace of illegal drugs must be curtailed with resoluteness and determination. However, by thrashing basic constitutional rights as a means to curtail the proliferation of illegal drugs, instead of protecting the general welfare, oppositely, the general welfare is viciously assaulted. In other words, by disregarding the Constitution, the war on illegal drugs becomes a self-defeating and self-destructive enterprise. A battle waged against illegal drugs that resorts to short cuts and tramples on the rights of the people is not a war on drugs; it is a war against the people.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused, Eutiquio Baer, was guilty of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165. This hinged on whether he had constructive possession of the drugs found in a locked steel box in his rented stall.
What is constructive possession?	Constructive possession exists when the illegal drug is under the dominion and control of the accused or when he has the right to exercise dominion and control over the place where it is found. It differs from actual possession, where the drug is in the immediate physical control of the accused.
Why did the Supreme Court acquit Eutiquio Baer?	The Supreme Court acquitted Baer because the prosecution failed to prove that he had dominion and control over the locked steel box containing the drugs. The box belonged to another person, and Baer had no way to open it, thus negating constructive possession.
What is the chain of custody rule in drug cases?	The chain of custody rule refers to the documented and authorized movements of seized drugs from the time of seizure to presentation in court. This ensures that the evidence presented is the same substance seized from the accused, maintaining its integrity and evidentiary value.
What are the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165?	Section 21 of RA 9165 requires that the seized items be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure. This must be done in the presence of the accused, an elected public official, a media representative, and a representative from the Department of Justice.
What happened in this case regarding Section 21 of RA 9165?	In this case, the authorities failed to follow several requirements of Section 21. The inventory and marking were not done immediately after seizure, the inventory was not conducted at the place of apprehension, there were no media or DOJ representatives present, and the accused was not given a copy of the inventory.
What is the importance of having witnesses during the seizure and inventory of drugs?	The presence of witnesses from the DOJ, media, and public elective office is necessary to protect against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug. Their presence ensures transparency and integrity in the process.
What is the role of presumption of innocence in criminal cases?	The accused has the constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution must prove each element of the crime, and the burden of proof never shifts to the accused.
What was the result of the non-compliance with RA 9165?	Since there was a serious breach in almost all of the mandatory requirements provided under RA 9165, and the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence presented by the prosecution were compromised, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused.

This case serves as a reminder of the importance of due process and the need for strict adherence to legal procedures in drug cases. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores that mere presence or access to illegal drugs is not sufficient for a conviction; the prosecution must prove actual dominion and control, and any lapses in the chain of custody can undermine the integrity of the evidence, leading to acquittal.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People of the Philippines v. Eutiquio Baer, G.R. No. 228958, August 14, 2019