In People v. Cariño, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Eduardo Cariño for maintaining a drug den and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, emphasizing the critical importance of adhering to due process and maintaining the integrity of evidence. The Court found that the warrantless arrest was invalid because the arresting officer lacked probable cause before making the arrest, rendering the subsequent search illegal. This decision underscores the necessity for law enforcement to follow proper procedures to protect individual rights and ensure that convictions are based on reliable evidence.

Unraveling a Drug Raid: When Does a Surveillance Turn into an Unlawful Arrest?

The case began with a surveillance operation on Eduardo Cariño’s house, prompted by an informant’s tip that it was being used for drug sessions. Police arrested Cariño based on observations made during the surveillance. The critical issue arose when the police, after arresting Cariño, conducted a search of his property, leading to the discovery of drug paraphernalia and illegal substances. This raises a fundamental question: Did the police have the right to arrest Cariño without a warrant, and was the subsequent search lawful?

The Supreme Court scrutinized the actions of the police, focusing on the validity of the warrantless arrest and the subsequent search. The Court referred to Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, which outlines the circumstances under which a warrantless arrest is lawful. This rule requires that the person to be arrested must be committing, has just committed, or is attempting to commit a crime in the presence of the arresting officer. The Court noted that probable cause must exist before the arrest is made, not as a result of actions taken after the arrest.

In this instance, the Court found that Cariño was not engaged in any overt criminal act at the time of his arrest. The police officer, SPO2 Navarro, admitted that he arrested Cariño before allegedly seeing drug use inside the house. This sequence of events was crucial because, according to the Court, it invalidated the arrest. Because the arrest was deemed unlawful, the subsequent search of Cariño’s house was also deemed illegal under the exclusionary rule, also known as the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine. This doctrine dictates that any evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search is inadmissible in court.

“According to this rule, once the primary source (the ‘tree’) is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence (the ‘fruit’) derived from it is also inadmissible. Stated otherwise, illegally seized evidence is obtained as a direct result of the illegal act; whereas the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ is the indirect result of the same illegal act.”

Building on this principle, the Court highlighted that the prosecution failed to prove that Cariño maintained a drug den beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution’s claim rested on two pillars: the alleged “plain view” observation of drug use inside the house and the purported general reputation of the house as a drug den. The Court dismantled both arguments. The “plain view” observation was discredited because the officer who claimed to have witnessed the drug use, Mallari, was not presented as a witness. Furthermore, SPO2 Navarro, who made the arrest, admitted he could not see what was happening inside the house from his position.

To establish the general reputation of the house as a drug den, the prosecution presented testimony from SPO2 Navarro regarding a statement made by one Valencia, who claimed to have used drugs in Cariño’s house. The Court dismissed this as hearsay evidence. Hearsay evidence is defined as testimony or documents quoting persons who are not present to testify. The Court emphasized that hearsay evidence, even if admitted without objection, has no probative value unless it falls under a recognized exception, which was not the case here. In this context, the Court cited:

“Hearsay evidence whether objected to or not cannot be given credence for it has no probative value.”

Moreover, the Court noted that admitting hearsay evidence in criminal cases violates the accused’s constitutional right to confront witnesses against them. This right ensures that the accused can cross-examine witnesses to challenge their testimony and assess their credibility. The Court reinforced this protection of individual rights, clarifying that:

“In criminal cases, the admission of hearsay evidence would be a violation of the constitutional provision that the accused shall enjoy the right to confront the witnesses testifying against him and to cross-examine them.”

Regarding the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the Court found that the prosecution failed to comply with the chain of custody rule as outlined in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR). The chain of custody rule requires that the apprehending team, after seizing and confiscating drugs, must immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the items in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official.

The Court found that during the inventory and photography of the seized items, no media representative was present. Although the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 provides a saving clause for noncompliance, it only applies if the prosecution acknowledges the procedural lapses and provides justifiable grounds, and establishes that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized evidence have been preserved. In this case, the prosecution failed to provide any justifiable reason for the absence of a media representative. The Court underscored that bare allegations of unavailability do not excuse noncompliance with the chain of custody rule.

Moreover, the Court noted that the arresting officers did not discuss the chain of custody procedure in their affidavits of arrest, which the Court now mandates as a policy. The Court then cited People v. Lim, clarifying that:

“In the sworn statements/affidavits, the apprehending/seizing officers must state their compliance with the requirements of Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, and its IRR. In case of non-observance of the provision, the apprehending/seizing officers must state the justification or explanation therefor as well as the steps they have taken in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized/confiscated items.”

The Court concluded that due to the failure to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti (the body of the crime), Cariño could not be convicted of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and acquitted Eduardo Cariño of all charges.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the warrantless arrest of Eduardo Cariño was lawful, and consequently, whether the evidence obtained from the subsequent search of his house was admissible in court. The Court focused on compliance with the chain of custody rule regarding seized illegal drugs.
Why was the warrantless arrest deemed unlawful?	The warrantless arrest was deemed unlawful because the arresting officer, SPO2 Navarro, did not have probable cause to believe that Cariño was committing a crime at the time of the arrest. The officer arrested Cariño before witnessing any illegal activity.
What is the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine?	The “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine is a legal principle that excludes evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search, arrest, or interrogation. This doctrine prevents the use of illegally obtained evidence to secure a conviction.
What is hearsay evidence, and why was it an issue in this case?	Hearsay evidence is testimony or documents quoting persons who are not present to testify. It was an issue because the prosecution presented SPO2 Navarro’s testimony about Valencia’s statement, which was used to establish the general reputation of Cariño’s house as a drug den, but Valencia did not appear to testify.
What is the chain of custody rule in drug cases?	The chain of custody rule requires that the prosecution must account for each link in the chain of possession of seized drugs, from the time of seizure to presentation in court as evidence. This ensures the integrity and identity of the evidence.
What are the mandatory requirements for the chain of custody under R.A. No. 9165?	Under R.A. No. 9165, the apprehending team must conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items immediately after seizure and confiscation in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media, a representative from the DOJ, and any elected public official.
What happens if the chain of custody rule is not strictly followed?	If the chain of custody rule is not strictly followed, the prosecution must provide justifiable grounds for the noncompliance and demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved. Failure to do so may result in the inadmissibility of the evidence.
Why was the absence of a media representative significant in this case?	The absence of a media representative during the inventory and photography of the seized items violated the chain of custody rule, as the law requires the presence of a media representative to ensure transparency and accountability. The prosecution failed to provide a justifiable reason for this absence.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Cariño serves as a reminder of the importance of upholding constitutional rights and adhering to proper legal procedures in drug cases. This ruling reinforces the need for law enforcement to conduct lawful arrests based on probable cause and to meticulously follow the chain of custody rule to maintain the integrity of evidence. It protects individuals from unlawful searches and seizures and ensures that convictions are based on reliable and admissible evidence.

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 vs. Eduardo Cariño y Leyva, G.R. No. 234155, March 25, 2019