People of the Philippines vs Jeryl Bautista

written by Howard

G.R. No. 255749 – Political Law – Constitutional Law – Bill of Rights – Search and Seizure – Warrantless Search – Incidental to Lawful Arrest vs Plain View

Remedial Law – Chain of Custody – Marking of Drug Evidence – Inadmissible if Marked Belatedly

In August 2017, a buy-bust operation was conducted against Jeryl Bautista. It was alleged that the operation was successful hence he was arrested for selling of illegal drugs.

After arrest, the poseur-buyer (PO2 Mark Argel De Guzman) waited for ten minutes, as the mandatory insulating witnesses (DOJ representative and barangay kagawads) were not yet around, before he marked the item allegedly sold by Bautista to him.

After marking, another police officer (PO1 Rommel Tuazon) searched the body of Bautista and from him was recovered a cellphone charger; when they opened the charger, they found three sachets of suspected shabu in it.

After trial, Bautista was convicted of illegal sale of drugs and illegal possession of drugs.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not Bautista’s conviction of illegal sale of drugs is proper.
  2. Whether or not Bautista’s conviction of illegal possession of drugs is proper.

HELD:

1. No. Section 21 or the Chain of Custody Rule in Drugs Cases require that the drug evidence allegedly sold by an individual must be immediately marked after seizure. This is to preserve the identity and the integrity of the drug evidence even if mingled with other similar drug evidence. The delay of ten minutes is not justified in this case. The insulating witnesses should have been present at the time of the selling. Their being late by ten minutes was not justified by the police. NOTE: In previous cases, the SC ruled that since a buy-bust operation is a planned operation, there should be no reason for the police not to secure the presence of the insulating witnesses at the start of the operation.

2. Yes. Bautista was arguing that the warrantless search and seizure of the sachets of shabu found in the charger was not valid because it does not fall under the plain view doctrine (how did the PNP know that the charger contained illegal drugs without opening the charger – in other words, the sachets were not in plain view).

The SC ruled that the warrantless search and seizure conducted on the person of Bautista was not under the plain view doctrine. It was under the principle of valid warrantless search and seizure incidental to a lawful arrest (the arrest is still lawful despite the PNP’s lapses in complying with the chain of custody rule). In other words, arresting officers are not bound by the plain view doctrine in searching the body of a person after a valid warrantless arrest. Note that searches upon the person of an arrested person is limited to the body of the arrested person where items are usually hidden (in pockets, bags, pouches, inner clothing, etc.).

So how do you harmonize plain view doctrine with search after valid arrest?

Both are instances of valid warrantless search and seizure. The plain view doctrine supplements the existing justification for a valid warrantless arrest. But the plain view doctrine only extends to the surroundings within the immediate control of the arrested person wherein objects in plain view of law enforcers can be seized and used as evidence against the arrested person.

Read full text.