G.R. No. L-34807 - People vs. Tachado

On May 22, 2012, at approximately 6:30 a.m., police officers from the Laoag City Police Station, led by SPO4 Rovimanuel Balolong and accompanied by SPO1 Ferdinand Santos, executed Search Warrant No. 05-2012 at petitioner Damacen Gabriel Cunanan’s residence in Barangay 14, Fonacier St., Laoag City.
The warrant, issued by the RTC for a violation of RA 9165, authorized the search of the petitioner’s bedroom, his Mitsubishi Pajero (plate number RDM 429), and the seizure of an “undetermined volume” of shabu.
Upon arrival, the officers identified themselves, announced the purpose of their entry, and knocked on the petitioner’s bedroom door, which he personally opened after requesting a moment to change his attire.

After the petitioner and his common-law wife, Justin Cyril Cunanan, left the bedroom to the living room, the police coordinated with Barangay Chairman Felix Ayson and several media members, inviting them as witnesses to the search.
Before conducting the search, Chairman Ayson frisked the police officers and declared them “clean” of contraband.
In the meanwhile, Gwendolyn Cunanan, the petitioner’s mother, surreptitiously entered the bedroom and emerged with a bundle wrapped in white cloth, asserting that SPO4 Balolong had thrown something under the bed.

SPO4 Balolong retrieved the bundle from Gwendolyn and extracted what he claimed were ten plastic sachets containing a white crystalline substance, which he then marked with his initials and handed over to SPO1 Santos.
Simultaneously, PO1 Ventura and PO3 Saclayan conducted a further search inside the bedroom and found a black box labeled “safety can be fun” that contained six pieces of cut aluminum foil and two disposable lighters. These items were later turned over to evidence custodian SPO4 Loreto Ancheta.
A search of the petitioner’s Mitsubishi Pajero, parked in the garage, revealed a white carton box (found under floor matting on the passenger side) which contained additional items: two pieces of cut aluminum foil, four empty plastic sachets, and one big heat-sealed plastic sachet with white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu.

The confiscated items were collated, inventoried, and sent for laboratory examination following proper marking procedures, although discrepancies arose in the handling of the evidence.
The laboratory report confirmed that the substances in the small sachets (aggregate 0.6006 gram) and the big sachet (14.7717 grams) tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, while the other items tested negative.
Based on these findings, separate Informations were filed against the petitioner for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs (Section 11, RA 9165) and Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (Section 12, RA 9165). An amended Information later clarified the weight and contents of the seized items.

The petitioner denied ownership and possession of the items, claiming that the seized evidence was planted. He argued that the bundle found by his mother was nothing more than a folded newspaper containing plastic sachets.
He disclaimed any relation to the vehicle where other drug paraphernalia were found by asserting that Gwendolyn was the true owner of the Mitsubishi Pajero.
The petitioner also challenged the legality and validity of the search warrant, alleging that the information provided by the deponent/asset (Antonio Buted, Jr.) was based on hearsay and motivated by personal animus related to parking issues.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a Decision on December 8, 2014, finding the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charges, sentencing him to life imprisonment (for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs with a fine) and a penalty for Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia.
The RTC held that by appearing in court the petitioner had waived his right to challenge the search warrant’s issuance.
The Court of Appeals (CA) subsequently affirmed, with modification (increasing the fine to P500,000.00 for the drug charge), the RTC’s Decision in its ruling dated June 28, 2017, and dismissed the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated January 22, 2018—leading to the present petition for review.

Whether the appellate court erred in upholding the petitioner’s conviction for violations of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of RA 9165.
Whether the issuance and implementation of the search warrant was valid and complied with constitutional and procedural safeguards, including the requirement for probable cause.
Whether the evidence seized during the search maintained an unbroken and properly documented chain of custody, particularly regarding conflicting counts and markings on the plastic sachets.
Whether the discrepancies in the inventory of seized items (such as the number of sachets, the markings on evidence, and the omission of items from the vehicle search) undermine the integrity of the corpus delicti.
Whether the absence of required witnesses (DOJ representative, elected official, media) during the inventory and marking of the evidence affects its admissibility and probative value.