FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 214786. April 28, 2021.]
RODOLFO BALANCIO y SANTOS, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 28, 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 214786 — (RODOLFO BALANCIO y SANTOS, petitioner v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent). — This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision 2 dated February 24, 2014 and Resolution 3 dated September 17, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 35155. The CA Decision and Resolution affirmed the Decision 4 dated June 11, 2012 of Branch 57 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Angeles City in Criminal Case No. DC 06-751, which convicted Rodolfo Balancio y Santos (Balancio) of illegal possession of dangerous drugs as penalized under Section 11 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165.
The Antecedent Facts
An Information 5 dated April 24, 2006 was filed charging Balancio with the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, committed as follows:
That on or about the 23rd day of April 2006, in the City of Angeles, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control one (1) piece of small size heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet weighing more or less TWO HUNDREDTHS (0.02) OF A GRAM OF SHABU (Methamp[h]etamine Hydrochloride) which is a dangerous drug, without authority whatsoever.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
Balancio pleaded not guilty during his arraignment on May 9, 2006. The case proceeded to trial on the merits. 7
Evidence for the Prosecution
The prosecution presented Police Officer 2 Alexander Flores (PO2 Flores) as its sole witness. PO2 Flores is a member of the Philippine National Police (PNP) deployed at Police Station 2 located at San Francisco St., Barangay Sta. Teresita, Angeles City. He was the intelligence operative assigned to respond to an informant's confidential report of illegal activity allegedly being conducted in front of the Justin Videoke bar. 8
The CA in its Decision summarized the factual assertions of the prosecution as follows:
On April 23, 2006, at around 8:30 o' clock [sic] in the evening, Police Investigator Sinampan, the officer-in-charge of Police Station 2 in San Francisco St., Barangay Sta. Teresita, Angeles City, received information via telephone that a certain man who was in possession of a suspected shabu was in front of Justin Videoke in San Francisco St., Barangay Lourdes Northwest, Angeles City. PO2 Flores was then instructed by Police Inspector Sinampan to verify the report and to respond thereto accordingly.
Upon arriving at the specified place, PO2 Flores saw a suspicious looking man who fit the description based on the confidential information. The man, who was walking back and forth in front of Justin Videoke, was later identified as [Balancio]. PO2 Flores approached [Balancio] and questioned him as to what he was doing in front of the bar. [Balancio] responded that he was about to get a drink. PO2 Flores initially noticed that the hands of [Balancio] were inside the pockets of his pants. When [Balancio] drew his hands out of his pocket, a small sized heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet dropped on the ground from his right pocket. PO2 Flores immediately picked it up from the ground thinking it was just a ticket. However, upon further scrutiny, PO2 Flores saw that it was a plastic sachet with a powder-like substance inside which he suspected to be shabu.
PO2 Flores proceeded to confront [Balancio] about the contents of the plastic sachet but the latter refused to talk. After accosting [Balancio], PO2 Flores brought him to the police station.
At the police station, PO2 Flores prepared the custodial investigation report, confiscation receipt, certification of initial field test, request for laboratory examination and affidavit of arrest. He also marked the confiscated item with his initial "AFC."
True enough, as shown by Chemistry Report No. D-101-206 as prepared by Police Inspector and Forensic Chemical Officer Amilyn Flores Maclid, the examination result confirmed that the substance was methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. 9
Evidence for the Defense
The defense presented Balancio as its sole witness. The CA summarized the factual averments and arguments of the defense as follows:
In an attempt to absolve himself from criminal liability, x x x [Balancio] vehemently denied the accusation hurled against him.
He claimed that, on April 23, 2006, at around 8:30 o'clock [sic] in the evening, he was drinking beer alone in a bar at Purok 1, Sta. Teresita, Angeles City, Pampanga. Allegedly, a woman approached [him] and asked if she could join him in his table. He immediately obliged and allowed the woman to sit beside him. Suddenly, a man approached their table and instantly pulled the woman who was with him. It later turned out that the woman and the man were lovers and were merely having a misunderstanding.
The woman then allegedly went back to the table of [Balancio] which caused the man to confront him. To avoid any altercation, [Balancio] purportedly decided to just leave the place and go home.
On his way out, he was allegedly invited by the man whom he had a brawl with to the barangay hall. For no apparent reason, [Balancio] acceded to the request.
At the barangay hall, [Balancio] purportedly witnessed the man who brought him there was making a phone call. Soon enough, another man, later identified as PO2 Flores, arrived in the barangay hall, approached him and proceeded to handcuff him. Thereafter, PO2 brought him to the police station and put him inside the jail.
According to [Balancio], he did not commit any crime and that he did not know the persons who arrested him as he was not a resident of that place. 10
RTC Ruling
The RTC 11 rendered its Decision dated June 11, 2012 convicting Balancio of illegal possession of dangerous drugs: CAIHTE
WHEREFORE, the prosecution having proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the Court finds accused RODOLFO BALANCIO y SANTOS GUILTY of the offense as charged and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of TWELVE (12) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY, as minimum, to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS AND EIGHT (8) MONTHS, as maximum, of Reclusion Temporal in Criminal Case No. 06-751 for violation of Section 11 of R.A. 9165 and a fine of Php300,000.00.
SO ORDERED. 12
The RTC convicted Balancio primarily on the basis of PO2 Flores' testimony which it deemed credible. 13 It further held that Balancio's defense of denial was not believable since it was not supported by evidence. There was also no explanation of any ill-motive on the part of PO2 Flores to concoct a story to have him incarcerated. 14
Aggrieved, Balancio appealed the RTC Decision to the CA.
Balancio, represented by the Public Attorney's Office, filed a Brief for the Accused-Appellant (Appellant's Brief). 15 He argued that RTC gravely erred in convicting him due to the following grounds:
1. The legality of his apprehension and arrest was questionable; 16
2. The prosecution failed to prove compliance with the mandatory procedural requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165; 17 and
3. The identity of the allegedly seized drugs is doubtful as evidenced by the discrepancy between the marking of the plastic sachet of drugs seized and the plastic sachet of drugs indicated in the Confiscation Receipt. 18
The State, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a Brief for the Appellee (Appellee's Brief). 19 It was argued that all the elements of the crime were sufficiently established by PO2 Flores' testimony which Balancio failed to rebut.
Moreover, failure to comply the procedural requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was not a fatal error and did not invalidate Balancio's arrest render the drugs seized inadmissible. 20 The police officers allegedly complied with the chain of custody rule and preserved the integrity of the seized drugs as evidenced by the several documents executed by them consisting of the Letter Request for Laboratory Examination, Confiscation Receipt, Certificate of Field Test, Affidavit of Arrest, and Custodial Investigation Report. 21 These documents allegedly proved that the seized drugs was properly handled, stored, labelled, and recorded. 22
CA Ruling
The CA rendered its Decision 23 dated February 24, 2014 affirming Balancio's conviction for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby rendered by us DENYING the appeal filed in this case. The Decision dated June 11, 2012 rendered by Branch 57 of the Regional Trial Court of the Third Judicial Region in Angeles City in Criminal Case No. DC 06-751 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 24
The CA denied Balancio's defenses of denial and frame-up since these were not supported by clear and convincing evidence. 25 It also held that the corpus delicti of the crime was established by PO2 Flores' unequivocal testimony.
It also held that law enforcers' failure to strictly comply with the procedural requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is not fatal, provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs was preserved. In this case, there was substantial compliance with the law and no break in the chain of custody was found. 26
Balancio sought reconsideration 27 of the Decision but was denied by the CA in its Resolution 28 dated September 17, 2014.
Hence, the instant petition.
The Petition
Balancio asks this Court to reverse and set aside the rulings of the CA based essentially on reiterated arguments from his Appellant's Brief.
He insists that the legality of his arrest is questionable. PO2 Flores proceeded to Justin Videoke bar pursuant only to a vague report from a confidential informant that a man who was "slim, with dark complexion, and semi bald" possessed shabu. 29
PO2 Flores admitted that when he saw Balancio and approached him, the latter was merely standing in front of the establishment and was not involved in any violation or crime. 30 The vague information PO2 Flores possessed, and the absence of any overt act on the part of Balancio indicative of a felonious enterprise, are clearly insufficient to constitute probable cause to justify a warrantless arrest. 31
He also claims that the police officers failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements provided under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. The following procedural lapses were allegedly committed:
1. The drugs allegedly confiscated was not immediately marked, photographed, and inventoried in the presence of Balancio or his representative.
2. The physical inventory of the seized drugs was not conducted in the presence of Balancio or his counsel, a representative from the media, Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elective official. 32
3. No proof was presented on who received the drugs and kept custody of it from the time it was delivered to the PNP Crime Laboratory until its qualitative examination, and afterwards until it was presented in court. 33
In refutation, the State filed a Comment 34 to the petition likewise reiterating its arguments in the Appellee's Brief.
Issue
The issue is whether or not the CA committed reversible error in affirming the conviction of Balancio for the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs.
Ruling of the Court
The petition is granted. aScITE
To sustain a conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, it must be proved that:
(1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug;
(2) such possession was not authorized by law; and
(3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. The evidence of the corpus delicti of the crime, consisting of the drugs seized from the accused, must also be established beyond reasonable doubt. 35
The corpus delicti is established by preserving the identity of the seized drugs presented during trial. The drugs offered in evidence must be the same drugs seized from the accused. To ensure this necessarily requires proof of the unbroken chain of custody of the drugs from the time of its seizure until its presentation in court. Each stage of the chain of custody must therefore be documented and proved. There is a failure to establish the corpus delicti if the seized drugs are missing or if there are substantial gaps in the chain of custody which raises doubts on its integrity and authenticity. 36
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 governing at the time of the commission of the offense lays down the procedure which must be followed by police operatives to prove the chain of custody and maintain the integrity of the seized and confiscated drugs:
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done under oath by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued within twenty-four (24) hours after the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of the dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued on the completed forensic laboratory examination on the same within the next twenty-four (24) hours; x x x
It is clear from the foregoing that (1) the seized drugs must be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation; and (2) the physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of (a) the accused or his/her representative or counsel, (b) an elected public official, (c) a representative from the media, and (d) a representative from the DOJ, all of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. 37
Non-compliance with the procedure provided under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 tarnishes the credibility of the corpus delicti. 38 This Court in People v. Morales39 held that the failure to comply with paragraph 1, Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 resulted in a concomitant failure on the part of the prosecution to establish the identity of the corpus delicti. 40
The accused in People v. Ismael41 was thus acquitted due to police officers' failure to prove that (1) the seized drugs were immediately marked in the presence of accused, and (2) an inventory and photographing was conducted in the presence of the accused and the required witnesses from the media, DOJ, and an elected public official. It was pertinently held:
Aside from the failure to mark the seized drugs immediately upon arrest, the arresting officers also failed to show that the marking of the seized drugs was done in the presence of the appellant. This requirement must not be brushed aside as a mere technicality. It must be shown that the marking was done in the presence of the accused to assure that the identity and integrity of the drugs were properly preserved. Failure to comply with this requirement is fatal to the prosecution's case.
The requirements of making an inventory and taking of photographs of the seized drugs were likewise omitted without offering an explanation for its non-compliance. This break in the chain tainted the integrity of the seized drugs presented in court; the very identity of the seized drugs became highly questionable.
To recap, based on the evidence of the prosecution, it is clear that no markings were made immediately after the arrest of the appellant. x x x Aside from these glaring infirmities, there was no inventory made, or photographs taken, of the seized drugs in the presence of the accused or his representative, or in the presence of any representative from the media, Department of Justice or any elected official, who must sign the inventory, or be given a copy of the inventory as required by RA 9165 and its IRR. 42
The Court in People v. Sood43 similarly acquitted the accused for the police officers' failure to conduct the inventory and photograph the drugs immediately after its seizure, and failure to ensure the presence of the required insulating witnesses at the time and place of the warrantless arrest and the inventory and photographing of the seized drugs. The Court ruled:
The plain import of Section 21 of RA 9165 is that the buy-bust team is to conduct the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items immediately after seizure and confiscation in the presence of the accused, his counsel, or representative, a representative of the DOJ, the media, and an elected public official, who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. And only if this is not practicable, can the inventory and photographing be done as soon as the buy-bust team reaches the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team. DETACa
Here, the buy-bust team admittedly failed to comply with the foregoing requirements. First, the conduct of the inventory was not conducted immediately at the place of seizure and apprehension; indeed, the police officers even contradicted each other as to where the inventory was supposedly conducted. This creates a very serious doubt in the Court's mind as to whether an inventory was actually even conducted. If the members of the buy-bust team have markedly different versions of what transpired after the seizure of the items, the Court cannot rely on their testimonies on the conduct of the inventory and photographing.
Second, even assuming an inventory had been conducted, the prosecution failed to comply with the requirement that the photographing be also done at the place of arrest. The prosecution's excuse of not having a camera is flimsy as they had planned the operation. x x x
Finally, and most revealing as to whether or not a buy-bust actually took place is the prosecution's abject and complete failure to comply with the requirement of bringing along the required three witnesses from the media, the DOJ, and any elected public official. To be certain, these witnesses should already have been present at the time of apprehension and the drugs' seizure, as this is a requirement the buy-bust team could easily have complied with given the nature of a buy-bust operation as a planned activity.
The Court again takes this opportunity to emphasize that the presence of the three witnesses required by Section 21 is precisely to protect and guard against the pernicious practice of policemen in planting evidence. Without the insulating presence of the three witnesses during the seizure and marking of the drugs, the evils of switching, "planting" or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of RA 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the seized drugs that were evidence of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of accused-appellant. 44 (Emphasis, underscoring and citation omitted.)
After a review of the records of this case, this Court finds that the prosecution failed to establish the unbroken chain of custody of the drugs seized from Balancio. The corpus delicti of the crime was thus not proven beyond reasonable doubt and strongly militates against his conviction.
The prosecution failed to prove that the police officers complied with the mandatory procedural requirements on marking, inventory, and photographing of the seized drugs provided under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.
Firstly, it is unclear from PO2 Flores' testimony relied upon by the lower court that the marking of the seized drugs was done immediately after Balancio's arrest and in his presence.
Secondly, there is no proof that the inventory and photographing of the seized drugs were done immediately after its seizure and in the presence of Balancio or his representative. It was not also not proven that the required insulating witnesses from the media, DOJ, and an elective public official were present at the time of the seizure of the drugs or during its inventory and photographing.
When confronted with this issue of non-compliance, the prosecution could not cite any evidence to prove otherwise. It did not even attempt to give any justifiable reasons for such non-compliance.
The prosecution merely claimed that PO2 Flores executed several documents (i.e., a letter request for laboratory examination, confiscation receipt, certificate of field test, affidavit of arrest, and custodial investigation report) which should be deemed sufficient proof of compliance with the mandatory requirements. 45 This argument clearly has no legal and factual basis and deserves scant consideration.
It also bears stressing that the RTC in its Decision could not cite any evidence to establish the unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs. The Decision should have contained a discussion on the evidence adduced to prove compliance with the mandatory requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. However, the Decision brushed these requirements aside and erroneously relied on PO2 Flores' testimony to establish all the elements of the crime as well as the corpus delicti.
Similarly, the CA in its Decision could not cite any evidence or basis to show that the integrity of the corpus delicti was preserved through an unbroken chain of custody. It did not address this issue directly and merely concluded that the failure of law enforcers to strictly comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is not fatal. 46
Thirdly, the police officers' failure to comply with the mandatory marking, inventory, and photographing requirements is evident from the resulting discrepancy in the markings of the drugs allegedly seized. PO2 Flores adamantly testified that he marked the plastic sachet of shabu seized from Balancio with his initials "AFC." However, as indicated on the Confiscation Receipt and Request for Laboratory Examination, the plastic sachet of shabu that was turned over and examined was one marked as "AFC-1." 47
This discrepancy in marking cannot be taken lightly and casts serious doubt on the integrity of the drugs allegedly seized from Balancio. This is precisely the reason why strict compliance is required for the procedures on marking, inventory, and photographing of seized drugs. A conviction for such a serious offense cannot be based on doubtful and tainted evidence. ATICcS
PO2 Flores was given the opportunity to explain this discrepancy during his cross-examination but could not do so. Hence, there is no certainty that the drugs allegedly seized from Balancio is the same as the drugs examined in the PNP Crime Laboratory and presented as evidence in court.
The prosecution cannot rely on the presumption of regularity afforded to PO2 Flores as a police officer in the performance of his official functions. 48 The Court in People v. Nandi49 has elucidated that the presumption of regularity cannot be applied when the official acts are irregular on its face:
Given the flagrant procedural lapses the police committed in handling the seized shabu and the obvious evidentiary gaps in the chain of its custody, a presumption of regularity in the performance of duties cannot be made in this case. A presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty is made in the context of an existing rule of law or statute authorizing the performance of an act or duty or prescribing a procedure in the performance thereof. The presumption applies when nothing in the record suggests that the law enforcers deviated from the standard conduct of official duty required by law; where the official act is irregular on its face, the presumption cannot arise. In light of the flagrant lapses we noted, the lower courts were obviously wrong when they relied on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. 50 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
In this case, the police officers' seizure and handling of the drugs was highly irregular for failure to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. No presumption of regularity can arise in the face of such anomalies.
Although non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 may be excused in exceptional cases, this is true only if (1) there is a justifiable ground, and (2) the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. 51
There are no grounds to qualify this case as an exception. The prosecution did not offer any justifiable grounds to explain the police officers' non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. It also cannot be said that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs was preserved since even the basic marking on the plastic sachet containing the seized drugs is doubtful. There was no evidence presented on when and how the inventory and photographing of the seized drugs was conducted. It was also not proved who had custody and handled the seized drugs from the time it was turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory to its presentation in court.
In view of all the foregoing, the prosecution utterly failed to establish the unbroken chain of custody of the drugs allegedly seized from Balancio which is fatal to its cause. The police officers' unjustified failure to comply with the procedural requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti and must result in Balancio's acquittal.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, We REVERSE and SET ASIDE the Decision dated February 24, 2014 and the Resolution dated September 17, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 35155, affirming the Decision dated June 11, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City in Criminal Case No. DC 06-751, convicting Rodolfo Balancio y Santos for violation of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165. Petitioner Rodolfo Balancio y Santos is hereby ACQUITTED and ordered IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for any other lawful cause.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to IMPLEMENT this Resolution and to report to this Court the action taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt. aDSIHc
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 11-28.
2.Id. at 75-85. Penned by Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Michael P. Elbinias and Danton Q. Bueser, concurring.
3.Id. at 99-100.
4.Id. at 50-56; penned by Judge Omart Viola.
5.Id. at 33.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 76.
8.Id.
9.Id. at 76-78.
10.Id. at 78.
11.Id. at 50-56.
12.Id. at 56.
13.Id. at 55.
14.Id. at 56.
15.Id. at 35-49.
16.Id. at 41-42.
17.Id. at 42-44.
18.Id. at 43-46.
19.Id. at 57-73.
20.Id. at 69.
21.Id. at 70-71.
22.Id. at 71.
23.Id. at 75-85.
24.Id. at 84-85.
25.Id. at 81.
26.Id. at 83-84.
27.Id. at 86-91.
28.Id. at 99-100.
29.Id. at 17-18.
30.Id. at 18.
31.Id. at 19.
32.Id. at 21.
33.Id. at 26.
34.Id. at 126-138.
35.People v. Morales, 630 Phil. 215, 228 (2010).
36.People v. Nepomuceno, G.R. No. 216062, September 19, 2018, 880 SCRA 440, 449.
37.People v. Manabat, G.R. No. 242947, July 17, 2019.
38.People v. Que, 824 Phil. 882, 896 (2018).
39.Supra note 35.
40.Id. at 229.
41. 806 Phil. 21 (2017).
42.Id. at 37.
43. G.R. No. 227394, June 6, 2018, 865 SCRA 368.
44.Id. at 386-389.
45.Rollo, pp. 70-71.
46.Id. at 84.
47.Id. at 22-24.
48.Id. at 71.
49. 639 Phil. 134 (2010).
50.Id. at 145-146.
51.People v. Malabanan, G.R. No. 241950, April 10, 2019.