Safeguarding Court Evidence: The Consequences of Neglect and Misconduct in Philippine Courts

When illegal drugs are stolen from a court's own evidence vault, the damage reaches far beyond a single case. In Judge Lilibeth O. Ladaga v. Atty. Arnan Amor P. Salilin and Elgie G. Bongosia (A.M. No. P-20-4067, November 3, 2020), the Supreme Court dismissed two court employees from the service after dozens of sachets of methamphetamine disappeared from the Regional Trial Court of Lianga, Surigao del Sur. The ruling is a reminder that court personnel are guardians of evidence — and that failing in that duty can end a career.

What Happened in Branch 28

In July 2019, during a hearing of a drug case, the court discovered that two sachets of "shabu" were missing from the evidence container. Two weeks later, another sachet was found missing in a different set of cases. Presiding Judge Lilibeth Ladaga requested an investigation by the National Bureau of Investigation and drug testing of all court personnel.

The drug tests came back negative for everyone except utility worker Elgie G. Bongosia. During his interview with NBI agents, Bongosia confessed that he had taken the sachets from the evidence vault. He claimed an unknown person had threatened him and told him to burn the records and evidence in the pending drug cases.

Bongosia later executed an affidavit recounting that one Saturday in June 2019, he took the vault key from the desk drawer of Clerk of Court Atty. Arnan Amor P. Salilin, opened the vault, and randomly pulled out sachets of drugs. He kept them at home, burned most of them behind Atty. Salilin's house, and admitted using one sachet.

An inventory revealed that Bongosia had taken a total of 36 sachets of drugs from 16 cases, with a total net weight of 16.0766 grams. Twenty-two sachets came from nine active or pending cases.

The Duty to Safekeep Court Evidence

The case turns on a duty that is easy to overlook. Under Section E (2), paragraph 2.2.3, Chapter VI of the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court, all exhibits turned over to the court remain under the custody and safekeeping of the Clerk of Court until the cases involving them are terminated. Section 7 of Rule 136 of the Rules of Court likewise requires the clerk to safely keep all records, papers, files, exhibits, and public property committed to his charge.

The Supreme Court described clerks of court as the "hub" of adjudicative and administrative activity, and as the designated custodians of court funds, records, properties, and premises. As evidence keeper, the clerk must conduct periodic inventory of dockets, records, and exhibits, and is liable for any loss, shortage, destruction, or impairment of these items.

Why the Clerk Was Liable for Gross Neglect

Atty. Salilin argued that he was also a victim — Bongosia had taken the key from his drawer without his knowledge. He added that the vault's lock may have been faulty and that the combination had simply been inherited from the previous clerk of court.

The Court was not persuaded. It found that Atty. Salilin had no system for guarding the vault key and was unsure whether he had left the keys in his drawer or his bag. If he believed the vault was old or faulty, he should have requested a replacement or at least raised the concern with the judge. A simple exercise of diligence would have prompted him to secure the vault's contents.

The Court also found no proof that Atty. Salilin conspired with Bongosia. Conspiracy requires an overt act showing concurrence in the criminal design; mere inaction or presence at the scene does not make one a co-conspirator.

The Office of the Court Administrator had recommended simple neglect of duty. The Supreme Court raised this to gross neglect of duty, citing Office of the Court Administrator v. Toledo (A.M. No. P-13-3124, February 4, 2020), where a clerk was held liable for gross neglect over lost drug evidence. Gross neglect is negligence characterized by a want of even slight care, or by acting or omitting to act with conscious indifference to the consequences. Because the lost sachets were needed in nine pending cases, the neglect was grave.

Why the Utility Worker Was Dismissed

Bongosia was held liable for grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. He deceived the guard on duty to gain access to the vault, admitted using the drugs, and compromised pending cases. The Court cited Zarate-Fernandez v. Lovendino (A.M. No. P-16-3530, March 6, 2018), where a court aide was held liable for stealing exhibits and selling a pilfered firearm.

Both respondents were dismissed from the service, their civil service eligibilities cancelled, and their retirement and other benefits — except accrued leave credits — forfeited. Both were perpetually disqualified from reemployment in any government agency.

Practical Takeaways

• Court evidence is not ordinary office supply. The Supreme Court stressed that exhibits are indispensable to adjudicative functions and must be secured with the same care as court funds.
• Periodic inventory is mandatory, not optional. Clerks of court must account for records and exhibits regularly; the loss in this case was discovered only during trial.
• Report defects immediately. A faulty vault or lock is not an excuse. The custodian must raise the concern and request repairs or replacements.
• Small items need greater vigilance. Sachets containing minute amounts of drugs are easy to take, so secure vaults, cabinets, and locks are essential.
• In drug cases, the drug itself is the corpus delicti. Its loss can undermine the prosecution and the integrity of the proceedings.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.