People v. Taglucop

Chain of Custody
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appelee

-versus-
DANNY TAGLUCOP y HERMOSADA, Accused-Appellant
G.R. No. 243577, March 15, 2022
PONENTE: Gesmundo
A. Case Doctrines:
1. Elements of Illegal Sale of drugs - The law requires that for the prosecution of illegal
sale of drugs to prosper, following elements must be proved: (1) the identity of the buyer and
seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and its
payment. What is material is the proof that the transaction actually took place, coupled with
the presentation before the court of the prohibited or regulated drug or the corpus delicti.
2. Chain of Custody Rule – The rule requires compliance with Sec. 21(1) of RA 9165.
The conduct of inventory and taking of photographs of the seized drugs must be done in the
presence of three witnesses: a representative from the media, a representative from the DOJ,
and any elected public official. As a general rule, the physical inventory and photograph shall
be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served. Except, 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.
B. 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. Carmen MPS then
planned a buy-bust operation and coordinated with PDEA. On same day, the buy-bust team
proceeded to designated place (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 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.
C. ISSUE: Is the court correct in finding accused Taglucop guilty of violation of Sec 5 & 11 of
Art. II of R.A. 9165?
D. RULLING: YES. The court is correct in finding accused Taglucop guilty of violation of Sec
5 & 11 of Art. II of R.A. 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:
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.
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.
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. Therefore, the court is correct in finding accused Taglucop guilty of violation of
Sec 5 & 11 of Art. II of R.A. 9165.

People v. Taglucop

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Taglucop

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Taglucop

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chain of Custody

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appelee

1. Conduct of inventory and taking of photographs. When the apprehending team

2. Place of inventory and taking of photographs of the seized items. As explained in

3. Saving Clause, which has two requisites:

You might also like