G.R. No. 242118 - Quilet y Fajardo vs. People

Petitioner Manuel Quilet y Fajardo, known as “Tonting,” was charged with violating Section 11(3), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended).
The case stemmed from events occurring on or about October 7, 2014, in Manila City.

According to the prosecution’s version, petitioner visited Manila City Jail to see his boyfriend, an inmate, on October 7, 2014.
Prior to entry, Jail Officer JO3 Gregorio Leonor III conducted an inspection and body search of the petitioner.
During the search, petitioner, who was wearing a bra, was instructed to pull up his shirt; this led to the discovery of a small plastic sachet hidden in the bra’s padding.
The sachet, described as an opened transparent plastic package marked “GTL-07-10-14,” contained 0.1572 grams of dried marijuana leaves and fruiting tops.
After the discovery, the sachet was confiscated, marked by JO3 Leonor, and subsequently turned over through the proper chain of custody—though discrepancies later emerged regarding its marking.

Petitioner pleaded not guilty during arraignment and maintained his denial of the charges, arguing that as a regular jail visitor he would not knowingly bring contraband.
The case proceeded through pre-trial and trial on the merits before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, which ultimately found petitioner guilty based on the evidence presented.
The RTC’s Decision, rendered on May 17, 2016, convicted petitioner and imposed an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment along with a fine.

The prosecution’s evidence centered on the discovery of the sachet during the body search; laboratory examination confirmed the substance to be marijuana.
Chain of custody issues arose, as the marking of the seized sachet was inconsistently noted in different documents (e.g., “GTL-07-10-14,” “GTL,” and “GTL III 07-10-14”), raising doubts about the integrity and identification of the item.
Essential procedural requirements under RA 9165 and its amendments, particularly concerning the immediate marking, inventory, and presence of required witnesses during the handling of the seized evidence, were not uniformly observed.

The search conducted by JO3 Leonor is classified as a strip search under BJMP SOP No. 2010-05.
The SOP mandates that a strip search be conducted only after a pat/frisk or rub search develops probable cause, and that it be performed under the direction of the jail warden or his deputy, with proper documentation and the visitor’s written consent.
In this case, the escalation from a pat/frisk/rub search to a strip search was allegedly unwarranted as no clear probable cause was demonstrated, and the required signing of a waiver or consent was not evidenced.

Petitioner appealed the RTC conviction to the Court of Appeals (CA), which, on July 12, 2018, affirmed the decision based on the prosecution’s evidence and the proper conduct of the body search according to BJMP guidelines.
Petitioner’s subsequent petition for review was aimed at reversing the conviction by challenging the admissibility and handling of the evidence, particularly emphasizing procedural lapses and discrepancies.

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction despite the alleged inadmissibility of the seized drug, which was argued to be tainted as the product of a “poisonous tree” process.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the conviction despite irregularities in the marking and the conduct of the inventory of the seized item.
Whether the failure of the prosecution to overcome the presumption of innocence established by the Constitution—coupled with procedural lapses in handling evidence—constituted a grave error justifying petitioner’s acquittal.