G.R. No. 241610 - Tabingo y Ballocanag vs. People

On December 6, 2013, at around 6:30 a.m., police officers executed Search Warrant No. 2013-115 at the residence of Loreto Tabingo in Sitio Baracca, Barangay A, Tayug, Pangasinan.
The search operation was led by Police Officer III Gina T. Aromin and Police Officer II Esteban C. Fernandez, in the presence of barangay kagawads Mariano P. Baybayan, Mandy P. Joaquin, and Freddie Bocobo.
During the search, Rose Cabanilla was found hiding under a bed and was ordered to step out and remain at the main door of the house.

The search yielded a glass tooter, a glass pipe, an improvised burner, and six (6) transparent plastic sachets containing suspected shabu residue.
The seized items were marked, inventoried in the presence of the barangay kagawads, and later handled by the police chain leading to the Pangasinan Provincial Crime Laboratory Office.
Forensic examination by Police Chief Inspector Imelda B. Roderos confirmed the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride in the specimens through Chemistry Report No. D-241-2013L.

Loreto Tabingo was arrested and charged in two separate Informations under Criminal Case Nos. T-5714 and T-5715 for violations of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
During arraignment, Tabingo pleaded not guilty but was subsequently convicted beyond reasonable doubt for illegal possession of dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered its decision on November 17, 2016, sentencing Tabingo to indeterminate prison terms and fines, and ordering the forfeiture of the seized items.

The petitioner filed an appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) disputing the conviction on several grounds, asserting violations of mandatory procedures.
Allegations included: failure to comply with Section 8, Rule 126 regarding the presence of the lawful occupant during the search; failure to issue a detailed receipt of the seized articles per Section 11, Rule 126; and failure to hand over the seized items to the issuing court per Section 12, Rule 126.
Additional contentions involved the prosecution’s inability to prove the chain of custody and integrity of the seized items, and that the evidence amounted to the proverbial “fruit of the poisonous tree.”

The CA, on May 30, 2018, affirmed the RTC’s decision, dismissing the petitioner’s appeal.
The petitioner sought further relief by filing a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the CA on August 16, 2018.
Subsequently, the petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court through a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, raising questions of both law and fact regarding the procedural irregularities.

Whether the police officers gravely erred in failing to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 8, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure in conducting the search warrant execution.
Whether the exclusion of the lawful occupant (or his family member) as a witness in the search rendered the process tainted and the evidence inadmissible.

Whether the police officers erred by failing to issue a detailed receipt of the seized articles to the lawful occupant, in light of Section 11, Rule 126.
Whether the failure to turn over the seized articles to the court that issued the search warrant, as mandated by Section 12, Rule 126, compromised the integrity of the evidentiary process.

Whether the prosecution failed to prove the integrity, identity, and proper chain of custody of the seized items (shabu residue and paraphernalia).
Whether the alleged deviations from the required chain of custody procedures rendered the evidence “tainted,” thus amounting to the “fruit of the poisonous tree.”

Whether, despite these evidentiary and procedural defects, the prosecution’s evidence was sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Whether the failure to comply with mandated procedures constitutes a basis for reversing the conviction and acquitting the petitioner.