ATTY.

JP MIRAFLOR, LO-RLO5

CASE DIGEST:
PEOPLE vs TAGLUCOP, G.R. No. 243577, March 15, 2022

FACTS:
On June 1, 2016, Carmen MPS received information that
accused Taglucop was engaged in the rampant of selling of
prohibited drugs. The police conducted surveillance and
confirmed that Taglucop was indeed engaged in illegal drug trade.
The OIC of Carmen MPS planned a buy-bust operation and
coordinated with PDEA. SPO2 Gilbuena was designated as poseur-
buyer (PB) and PO1 Llones as arresting officer and other personnel
as back-ups. SPO2 Gilbuena was provided with a 200 peso bill.

On same day, the buy-bust team proceeded to designated

place (sari-sari store) then, proceeded to their respective locations
near the sari-sari store. The CI made initial contact with Taglucop
and introduced SPO2 Gilbuena as PB. When the sale was
consummated, PO1 Llones arrested Taglucop and informed him of
his constitutional rights.

Thereafter, three (3) Brgy Officials arrived and SPO2

Gilbuena voluntarily submitted himself to a body search to Kgwd
Villahermosa. Subsequently, he showed to the brgy officials the
suspected shabu he bought to Taglucop and marked the same.
SPO2 Gilbuena conducted body search on Taglucop and recovered
two (2) heat sealed plastic sachets, 100 peso bill and 200 buy-bust
money. The marking and taking of photographs were done in the
presence of Taglucop and the brgy officials. The team decided to
pull out from the crime scene as they could no longer wait for the
arrival of DOJ Rep because of the gathering of the crowd and it
was already raining, making the place unsafe. They then
immediately proceeded to their station. At the police station, DOJ
and media representatives arrived and signed the inventory. Since
it was late at night, SPO2 Gilbuena place the suspected shabu
inside his locker, which he padlocked. The following morning
brought it to the Crime Lab, which was received by PO1 Paltep and
later turned over to the forensic chemist. The three (3) sachets
were found positive for methamphetamine hydrocholoride.

RTC found Taglucop guilty beyond reasonable doubt for

violation of Sec 5 & 11, Art II of RA 9165. CA affirmed the ruling
of the RTC.
ISSUE:
Whether the CA erred in affirming the ruling of the RTC
finding Taglucop guilty of violation Sec 5 & 11 of Art. II of R.A.
9165.

HELD:

The Court finds no reason to deviate from the ruling of the

lower courts finding accused-appellant guilty of violation of Secs.
5 and 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165.

The prosecution was able to establish all the elements of

illegal sale of shabu, viz: 1) SPO2 Gilbuena as Poseur Buyer and
Taglucop as Seller 2) the delivery of the corpus delicti; 3) marked
money as consideration.

There has been compliance with the Chain of Custody Rule as

provided in Sec. 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No.
10640. This provision consists of three parts, viz:

1. Conduct of inventory and taking of photographs.

When the apprehending team seizes the purported dangerous
drugs or paraphernalia, a physical inventory of the seized
items and photography of the same must be conducted
immediately after the said seizure or confiscation and these
must be conducted in the presence of the accused or the
persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or
seized or his representative or counsel and with two (2)
insulating witnesses (1.elected public official and 2.
representative of the NPS or the Media).

2. Place of inventory and taking of photographs of the

seized items. As explained in People v. Tumabini the only
difference between a search warrant and warrantless
search/buy bust operation is the VENUE of the physical
inventory and taking of photographs. In search implemented
through search warrant, the physical inventory and taking
of photographs shall be conducted at the place where the said
SW was served. In buy bust operation or warrantless
seizure, physical inventory shall be conducted at the nearest
police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending
team. However, recent jurisprudence made a clarification
that the GENERAL RULE is that the inventory and taking
 of photographs must be conducted at the place of seizure. The
EXCEPTION, is when the police officers provide
justification that it was not practicable to conduct the same
at the place of seizure and the items seized are threatened by
immediate or extreme danger at the place of seizure that the
inventory and taking of photographs can be done at the
nearest police station or nearest office of the apprehending
officer.

3. Saving Clause, which has two requisites:

1) The existence of "justifiable grounds" allowing
departure from the rule on strict compliance; and
2) The integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending team. By establishing the four links of the
chain of custody; first, the seizure and marking, if
practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the
accused by the apprehending officer; second, the
turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending
officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover
by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the
forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and
fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked
illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court

In the case at bar, the Court finds that the procedure laid
down by Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, was complied with.
The first and second parts of Sec. 21 (1 )-presence of the insulating
witnesses during the inventory and taking of photographs, and the
conduct thereof at the nearest police station - were satisfactorily
fulfilled.

Only marking was done at the place of arrest. However, there

were three justifications as to why the inventory and taking of
photographs were done at the police stations, viz: 1) there was a
crowd gathering in the place; 2) it was already raining;
and 3) the place of seizure was unsafe at that time. To the
judgment of the police officers conducting the operation, the
gathering crowd and the ongoing rain could jeopardize the seized
items. Considering that the seized items were crystallized
substances, such are susceptible to contamination from water or
rain. Accordingly, it was understandable for the police officers to
conduct the inventory and taking of photographs at the nearest
police station, where the complete insulating witnesses were
present. These justifications provided by the police officers were
indicated in the judicial affidavits of SPO2 Gilbuena and
P/Insp. Lacana and were still fresh in the minds of the police
officers and were not just concocted excuses. Their
testimonies likewise detailed who marked and how the markings
were made, and the subsequent transfer to the police station for
the inventory and photography.

Verily, if the Court would require absolute, undeniable,

perfect, and unfathomable evidence from the prosecution to
justify the change of venue of the inventory and taking of
photographs, then the provision of Sec. 21(1), which allows the
conduct of the same at the nearest police station or at the nearest
office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable,
would practically be unachievable and shall never see the light of
day in actual police operations. Lex non cognitad
impossibilia. The law does not require the impossible.

In the Court's view, it is the police officers who have the

expertise to decide whether it is practicable to conduct the
inventory and taking of photographs of the seized items in a
warrantless search at the place of seizure or at the nearest police
station. As long as the police officers provide a sufficient
reason for the change of venue for the conduct of the
inventory and taking of photographs, then, it must be allowed.

The Court points out that the non-adherence to Sec. 21, Art.
II of R.A. No. 9165 was not a serious flaw that would make the
arrest of accused-appellant illegal or that would render the shabu
subject of the sale inadmissible as evidence against him. What was
crucial was the proper preservation of the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized shabu, inasmuch as that would be
significant in the determination of the guilt or innocence of
accused-appellant.

Here, the prosecution showed that the chain of custody of the

shabu was firm and unbroken. Thus, the Court holds that there
has sufficient compliance with the chain of custody rule and, thus,
the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been
properly preserved.