Case Digest (G.R. No. 243577)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Danny Taglucop y Hermosada, G.R. No. 243577, March 15, 2022, Supreme Court First Division, Gesmundo, C.J., writing for the Court.The prosecution charged Danny Taglucop y Hermosada (accused‑appellant) by two Informations dated July 4, 2016: Criminal Case No. 21117 for sale of a dangerous drug in violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165; and Criminal Case No. 21118 for illegal possession of dangerous drugs in violation of Section 11, Article II of the same law. The alleged buy‑bust occurred on July 2, 2016 at a sari‑sari store in Sitio Tuhog, Purok 7, Brgy. Cahayagan, Carmen, Agusan del Norte.
Police Inspector Franklin A. Lacana planned and coordinated the buy‑bust with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. Senior Police Officer II Jay C. Gilbuena acted as poseur‑buyer and was given a marked P200.00 bill. According to the prosecution, the confidential informant introduced Gilbuena to accused; the accused allegedly accepted the marked money and handed a heat‑sealed plastic sachet to Gilbuena, who signaled arrest by exposing his hood. PO1 Rolly Llones effected the arrest; a body search by Gilbuena recovered two additional sachets, a P100.00 bill and the marked P200.00. The sachets were marked “JCG1,” “JCG2,” and “JCG3.” Because a crowd had gathered and it was raining, the team moved to the Carmen police station where the DOJ representative and a media representative later signed the certificate of inventory. The specimens were submitted to the Philippine Crime Laboratory, where Police Chief Inspector Cramwell T. Banogon reported they tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Accused denied the sale and possession, claiming he was singing in a videoke and that officers planted the matchbox and evidence on him. At the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 3, Butuan City, accused pleaded not guilty; after trial the RTC, in a March 28, 2017 Joint Judgment, found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both offenses and imposed penalties (the RTC sentenced for sale to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole and fines, and for possession to a term and fine). The RTC ordered confiscation and turnover of the seized sachets to PDEA.
Accused appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). In its September 4, 2018 Decision in CA‑G.R. CR‑HC No. 01748‑MIN the CA, penned by Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles, affirmed the RTC judgment in its entirety. The CA found the prosecution had proved the identity of buyer and seller, the corpus delicti (sachets later confirmed by laboratory), and the marked bill as consideration; it also concluded the chain of custody wa...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was there substantial compliance with Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, such that the chain of custody and integrity of the seized drugs were preserved?
- Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt the elements of illegal sale (Sec. 5) and illegal possession (Sec. 11) of dangerous drugs, overcoming accused‑appellant’...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)