Togado v. People

On a search warrant issued by the RTC of Santa Cruz, Laguna, police searched Benjamin Togado's house on May 29, 2014. Togado pointed to a .45-caliber pistol on a chair; its magazine held five live rounds. PO1 San Luis placed the firearm and magazine in a ziplock plastic and marked the plastic, not the gun, "MMS-01 5/29/14." The Firearms and Explosives Office certified that Togado was "not a registered firearm holder of any kind or caliber per verification." He was charged under Section 28 of R.A. No. 10591. At trial the gun produced bore the marking "Magdalena MPS" and the magazine "MAG MPS"; PO1 San Luis admitted the marked plastic was destroyed when he retrieved the gun from the evidence custodian, the gun was in a different container, and he was not certain it was the firearm recovered. After his demurrer was denied and the defense presented no evidence, the RTC convicted Togado. The CA affirmed, citing People v. Olarte that the firearm itself need not be presented. Togado petitioned the Supreme Court, also attacking the search warrant.

1. 1Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the search warrant was valid.
2. 2Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Togado's conviction for violation of R.A. No. 10591.

Petition granted; Togado acquitted. The search warrant was valid: under Ogayon v. People, failure to attach the depositions or transcript of the judge's examination does not by itself nullify a warrant, and the warrant here named the applicant and stated a witness was examined; the place and items were described with sufficient particularity, with a map attached. But the first element of the offense, the existence of the firearm, was not proven because the prosecution failed to show the firearm's integrity was preserved. Though R.A. No. 10591 has no chain-of-custody provision, the 2013 PNP Operational Procedures Manual required that the chain of custody "be strictly observed and documented." The discrepancy in markings, the destroyed container, and PO1 San Luis's admissions created reasonable doubt; Olarte and the murder cases cited by the OSG were distinguished. The Court reasoned that dispensing with the firearm would let anyone be convicted on a mere non-license certification, and that the firearm's classification determines the penalty under Section 28. It laid down guidelines: in R.A. No. 10591 prosecutions, "the presentation of the exact same firearm is required"; it is likewise required where Section 29 makes use of a loose firearm a qualifying circumstance; where use of a firearm is merely aggravating or inherent, presentation is preferred but secondary evidence may be considered; and every confiscated firearm "must be marked, photographed, and duly authenticated, and its integrity preserved," noncompliance not automatically acquitting but possibly raising reasonable doubt if unjustified.