People vs. Taglucop

In warrantless seizures like buy-bust operations, the physical inventory and taking of photographs of seized items must generally be conducted at the place of seizure, but may be done at the nearest police station if it is not practicable to do so at the place of seizure or if there is a threat of immediate or extreme danger. Justifiable grounds for deviation, coupled with proof that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved, will satisfy the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640.

Acting on information that Danny Taglucop y Hermosada was selling illegal drugs, the Carmen Municipal Police Station planned a buy-bust operation. On July 2, 2016, a poseur-buyer (SPO2 Gilbuena) purchased a sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) from the accused-appellant using marked money. After the sale, the accused-appellant was arrested, and a body search yielded two additional sachets of shabu. The marking of the items was done at the scene in the presence of barangay officials. However, due to a gathering crowd and rain, the team proceeded to the police station to conduct the inventory and photography, where representatives from the DOJ and media later signed the inventory.

• The Buy-Bust Operation: On July 2, 2016, a buy-bust team was dispatched to Sitio Tuhog, Barangay Cahayagan, Carmen, Agusan del Norte. The confidential informant introduced poseur-buyer SPO2 Gilbuena to the accused-appellant. After some hesitation, the accused-appellant sold a sachet of shabu to SPO2 Gilbuena in exchange for a marked P200.00 bill.
• Arrest and Seizure: Upon consummation of the sale, SPO2 Gilbuena gave a pre-arranged signal. PO1 Llones approached, arrested the accused-appellant, and informed him of his constitutional rights. Barangay officials arrived shortly after. SPO2 Gilbuena marked the purchased sachet as "JCG1." A body search conducted on the accused-appellant yielded two more heat-sealed plastic sachets of white crystalline substance from his pocket, marked "JCG2" and "JCG3," along with the marked money and a P100.00 bill.
• Transfer to Police Station: The team leader, P/Insp. Lacana, decided to leave the scene because a crowd was gathering and it was raining, making the area unsafe. They proceeded to the Carmen Municipal Police Station.
• Inventory and Photography at the Station: At the station, the DOJ representative (Noel Indonto) and media representative (Jeffrey Cloribel) arrived. The inventory was conducted, and a Certificate of Inventory was signed by the accused-appellant, the barangay officials, and the DOJ and media representatives. Photographs were also taken.
• Laboratory Examination: The seized items were submitted for laboratory examination. Chemistry Report No. D-605-2016 confirmed the three sachets contained a total of 0.1709 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
• Defense's Version: The accused-appellant denied the charges, claiming he was singing at a videoke when he was arrested and that evidence was planted on him.

• Invalid Buy-Bust and Illegal Search: Petitioner (accused-appellant) argued that no surveillance was conducted to confirm his illegal activities, rendering the buy-bust operation and the subsequent body search illegal.
• Failure to Comply with Chain of Custody: Petitioner maintained that the prosecution failed to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs due to non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165, particularly the requirement to conduct the inventory and photography at the place of seizure.

• Establishment of Elements: Respondent (People) countered that all elements of illegal sale and illegal possession were duly established through the poseur-buyer's testimony and the seized evidence.
• Substantial Compliance with Chain of Custody: Respondent argued that there was an unbroken chain of custody from seizure to laboratory examination. The transfer to the police station was justified by safety concerns (gathering crowd and rain), and the integrity of the seized items was preserved.

• Compliance with Section 21: Whether the apprehending team's failure to conduct the physical inventory and photography at the place of seizure, and instead doing so at the police station, constitutes a fatal breach of the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended.
• Sufficiency of Evidence for Conviction: Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt.

• Compliance with Section 21: The appeal is unmeritorious. The prosecution provided justifiable grounds for conducting the inventory and photography at the nearest police station. The gathering crowd and ongoing rain created an unsafe environment that could compromise the safety of the officers, the witnesses, and the integrity of the seized crystalline substances. The police officers, in the exercise of their expertise, made a reasonable decision to transfer the venue. Furthermore, the required insulating witnesses (elected official, DOJ representative, and media representative) were all present during the inventory at the station. Thus, there was substantial compliance with Section 21.
• Sufficiency of Evidence for Conviction: The elements of illegal sale (identity of buyer and seller, object of sale, and consideration) and illegal possession (effective control and lack of authority) were proven. The chain of custody was unbroken: (1) SPO2 Gilbuena seized and marked the items; (2) he retained custody until turnover to the investigating officer; (3) the items were delivered to the forensic chemist; and (4) the chemist presented the findings in court. The defenses of denial and frame-up were self-serving and unsubstantiated.

• Chain of Custody Rule in Drug Cases — This rule requires the prosecution to account for each link in the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs, from seizure and marking, to turnover to the investigating officer, to delivery to the forensic chemist, and finally to presentation in court. Its purpose is to ensure the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti.
• Saving Clause under Section 21 of RA 9165 — Non-compliance with the strict procedural requirements of Section 21 does not automatically render a seizure invalid. The prosecution may invoke the saving clause if it proves: (1) the existence of justifiable grounds for the non-compliance; and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. The burden of proving these requisites lies with the prosecution.

• "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 cognit ad impossibilia. The law does not require the impossible."
• "The police officers were in the best position to determine whether the surrounding circumstances could compromise the safety of the buy-bust team, as well as the witnesses, and even the drugs seized from accused-appellant."

• People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231902, June 30, 2021 — Cited to support the rule that the inventory and photography in warrantless seizures must be conducted at the place of seizure unless there is a threat of immediate or extreme danger.
• People v. Salenga, G.R. No. 239903, September 11, 2019 — Distinguished; in that case, a flimsy excuse (a growing crowd) was deemed insufficient to justify transfer of venue, whereas in the present case, the added factor of rain provided a more compelling justification.
• People v. Pacnisen, 842 Phil. 1185 (2018) — Cited for the principle that even when inventory is conducted at a police station, it must still be done in the presence of the accused and the insulating witnesses.
• People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214 (2008) — Cited for the initial explanation of how the saving clause under the Implementing Rules of RA 9165 can be invoked.

• Section 21(1), Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 (as amended by RA 10640) — Provides the mandatory procedure for the custody and disposition of seized dangerous drugs, including the immediate conduct of a physical inventory and photography in the presence of the accused and specific insulating witnesses. It also contains the saving clause for non-compliance under justifiable grounds.

Caguioa, Inting, Gaerlan, and Dimaampao, JJ.