The Supreme Court in Perly Tuates y Chico v. People of the Philippines acquitted the petitioner, reversing the lower courts’ decisions. The Court found that the search conducted on Tuates was irregular and violated established procedures, thus casting doubt on the integrity of the evidence. This case underscores the importance of adhering to proper search protocols to safeguard individual rights against unlawful intrusions.

Unlawful Frisk or Evidence Planting? Examining Jail Search Protocols and Drug Possession

In Perly Tuates y Chico v. People of the Philippines, the central question revolved around the legality of a search conducted at a provincial jail and its impact on a drug possession charge. Tuates was visiting her boyfriend, an inmate, when a jail guard allegedly found a sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride tucked in her underwear. Tuates vehemently denied the accusation, claiming the evidence was planted. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted her, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA), primarily relying on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. The Supreme Court (SC), however, reversed these decisions, acquitting Tuates due to significant doubts about the legality and regularity of the search.

At the heart of the SC’s decision was the finding that the jail guard, Bundang, did not follow the prescribed procedures for conducting searches on jail visitors. The Bureau of Jail Management and Penology Standard Operating Procedures Number 2010-05 (BJMP-SOP 2010-05) outlines specific guidelines to ensure searches are conducted respectfully and with minimal intrusion. These guidelines mandate that searches should be conducted in the least intrusive manner, respecting individual dignity and privacy. Notably, the SOP details specific methods for pat/frisk searches, which involve patting or squeezing the subject’s clothing to detect contraband, and rub searches, which are more thorough but still conducted over the clothing. The policy clearly emphasizes that searches should not be more extensive than necessary.

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. The search should not be more extensive than necessary to determine the existence of contraband believed to be concealed on the subject.

In Tuates’ case, the jail guard admitted to raising Tuates’ shirt and, at one point, claimed to have inserted her hand inside Tuates’ undergarments. The Court deemed these actions a clear violation of the established search protocols. The SOP permits a strip search only if there is probable cause that contraband is hidden and unlikely to be discovered through a standard pat/frisk search, and only after the visitor agrees in writing. None of these conditions were met in Tuates’ situation. Bundang’s suspicion stemmed merely from the fact that Tuates’ boyfriend was incarcerated for a drug-related offense, which the Court deemed insufficient for probable cause.

Moreover, the Court highlighted material inconsistencies in Bundang’s testimony. In her initial sworn statement, she indicated that the sachet was found on the right side of Tuates’ undergarment, while in her direct testimony, she stated it was on the left side. The Court noted that, while such discrepancies might be overlooked under different circumstances, they gained significance given the already irregular conduct of the search. The Court stated, “Under different circumstances, the foregoing discrepancy may be dismissed as immaterial — or a minor inconsistency — that does not affect the witness’ credibility or the culpability of the accused. However, considering that the Court cannot afford Bundang the presumption of regularity in the performance of her duties, as previously discussed, the other inconsistencies in her testimony become material, and adds further reasonable doubt on the existence of the third element of the charge, i.e. whether Tuates freely and consciously possessed the drug.”

Adding to the doubts, the Court questioned whether a proper inventory of the seized item was conducted. The prosecution witnesses testified that the seized item was immediately submitted to the crime laboratory, raising doubts about when and how an inventory could have been performed. Furthermore, Bundang, who was listed as the seizing officer and a signatory to the Inventory Receipt, admitted she did not know if an inventory was conducted. This contradiction further eroded the credibility of the prosecution’s case and raised serious questions about the chain of custody of the alleged illegal drug. The significance of maintaining an unbroken chain of custody in drug-related cases is well-established in Philippine jurisprudence. It ensures the integrity and identity of the seized drugs, preventing contamination, substitution, or alteration of the evidence. Compliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165, which mandates specific procedures for handling seized drugs, is vital.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot override the fundamental presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. In this case, the Court found that the blatant disregard for established procedures by the jail guard negated any presumption of regularity. The Court quoted People v. Catalan, reminding lower courts that the presumption of regularity cannot prevail over the stronger presumption of innocence. The Court stated, “Where, like here, the proof adduced against the accused has not even overcome the presumption of innocence, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty could not be a factor to adjudge the accused guilty of the crime charged.”

Both lower courts favored the members of the buy-bust team with the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duty, mainly because the accused did not show that they had ill motive behind his entrapment.

We hold that both lower courts committed gross error in relying on the presumption of regularity.

Presuming that the members of the buy-bust team regularly performed their duty was patently bereft of any factual and legal basis. We remind the lower courts that the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty could not prevail over the stronger presumption of innocence favoring the accused. Otherwise, the constitutional guarantee of the accused being presumed innocent would be held subordinate to a mere rule of evidence allocating the burden of evidence. Where, like here, the proof adduced against the accused has not even overcome the presumption of innocence, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty could not be a factor to adjudge the accused guilty of the crime charged.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Tuates v. People serves as a potent reminder of the importance of protecting individual rights against unlawful searches and seizures. It reinforces the principle that law enforcement officers must adhere strictly to established protocols when conducting searches and handling evidence. Failure to do so can result in the exclusion of evidence and the acquittal of the accused, regardless of the alleged crime. The ruling also reiterates the primacy of the presumption of innocence, which cannot be easily overridden by the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the search conducted on Perly Tuates at the provincial jail was lawful, and whether the evidence obtained from that search was admissible in court. The Court examined the procedures followed during the search and determined whether they adhered to established protocols.
What is the presumption of regularity?	The presumption of regularity is a legal principle that assumes law enforcement officers perform their duties in accordance with established procedures and the law. However, this presumption can be overturned by evidence showing that the officers did not follow proper protocols.
Why did the Supreme Court acquit Perly Tuates?	The Supreme Court acquitted Tuates because the jail guard did not follow the prescribed procedures for conducting searches, casting doubt on the integrity and admissibility of the evidence. The Court emphasized that the presumption of regularity could not override Tuates’ constitutional right to be presumed innocent.
What is BJMP-SOP 2010-05?	BJMP-SOP 2010-05 refers to the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology Standard Operating Procedures Number 2010-05, which outlines the proper conduct of body searches on jail visitors. It provides guidelines to ensure searches are conducted with respect for individual dignity and privacy, and with minimal intrusion.
What are the requirements for a legal strip search?	A strip search may only be conducted if there is probable cause that contraband is being hidden and is unlikely to be discovered through a standard pat/frisk search. 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.
What is the importance of the chain of custody in drug cases?	The chain of custody refers to the process of tracking and documenting the handling of evidence to ensure its integrity and authenticity. Maintaining an unbroken chain of custody is critical in drug cases to prevent contamination, substitution, or alteration of the evidence.
What did the Court find regarding the inventory of the seized item?	The Court found it doubtful that a proper inventory of the seized item was conducted. There were inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and Bundang admitted that she did not know whether an inventory was conducted, despite being a signatory to the Inventory Receipt.
What is the effect of failing to follow search procedures?	Failing to follow established search procedures can lead to the exclusion of evidence obtained during the search and the acquittal of the accused. It also undermines the credibility of the prosecution’s case and raises concerns about the violation of individual rights.

This case highlights the judiciary’s role in protecting individual liberties and ensuring that law enforcement actions are within constitutional bounds. The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a guide for law enforcement agencies to respect and protect the rights of individuals during searches and seizures.

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: Perly Tuates y Chico, vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 230789, April 10, 2019