FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 250988. September 12, 2022.]
ERWIN CARMONA y CLARIANES, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated September 12, 2022 which reads as follows:
"G.R. 250988 (Erwin Carmona y Clarianes v. People of the Philippines). — This Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 (petition) assails the Decision 2 dated 20 May 2019 and the Resolution 3 dated 09 December 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 40936. The CA affirmed the Decision 4 dated 03 November 2017 of Branch 92, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calamba City, Laguna convicting petitioner Erwin Carmona y Clarianes (Carmona) of the crime of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165.
The procedural safeguards under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 5 are not meant to thwart the efforts of police officers to curtail the proliferation of crimes involving dangerous drugs. Nonetheless, in case of non-compliance with the same, it shall be the prosecution's duty to prove the existence of a justifiable reason. Likewise, the prosecution is expected to establish that steps were taken to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the illegal drugs allegedly seized. Should the prosecution fail, the acquittal of the accused is warranted.
Antecedents
Carmona was charged under two Informations, one for violation of Section 12, Article II of RA 9165 (Criminal Case No. 18940-2012-C), and the other for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 (Criminal Case No. 18941-2012-C). The accusatory portions of the Informations read:
Criminal Case No. 18940-2012-C
"That on or about January 27, 2012, in the Municipality of Calauan, Province of Laguna and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, and unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control three (3) rolled stick papers containing dried leaves/seeds of marijuana, one (1) small block dried leaves/seeds known as marijuana, one (1) blue lighter, one (1) small pouch color black and six (6) pcs. transparent plastic sachets, a paraphernalia intended to be used for sniffing marijuana, a dangerous drug, without the corresponding authority of law.
Contrary to law. 6
Criminal Case No. 18941-2012-C
"That on or about 27 January 2012, in the Municipality of Calauan, Province of Laguna and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously possess six (6) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing 5.00 grams of Marijuana, a dangerous drug, without the corresponding authority of law.
CONTRARY TO LAW." 7
During Carmona's arraignment on 07 March 2012, he pleaded not guilty to the charges. 8 After the termination of pre-trial proceedings, trial on the merits ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution presented Police Officer (PO) 1 Roginald Dimla (PO1 Dimla) and PO2 Mark Jay Bartolome Alhambra (PO2 Alhambra) as witnesses. 9 They narrated that on 22 January 2012, PO2 Alhambra received information from their confidential agent that Carmona was selling illegal drugs in Barangay Dayap, Calauan, Laguna. 10 Thus, PO2 Alhambra gave instruction to the confidential agent to conduct a test-buy, which led to the purchase of a sachet of suspected illegal drugs from Carmona. 11 When the substance was brought to the Crime Laboratory in Sta. Cruz, Laguna for testing, the results confirmed the substance was positive for marijuana. 12
Thereafter, the Calauan Police Station, through PO3 Moises Cuadla (PO3 Cuadla), PO1 Dimla, and PO2 Alhambra, applied for the issuance of a search warrant. Judge Jison Julian of the 2nd Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Magdalena, Liliw, and Majayjay, Laguna granted the application and issued Search Warrant No. 152. The officers then coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for the conduct of the search. 13
On 27 January 2012, PO3 Cuadla, PO1 Dimla, PO2 Alhambra, and the rest of their team proceeded to the house of Carmona. Upon arrival, PO3 Cuadla first knocked and introduced himself and his team. 14 Carmona opened the door and the officers served him with the search warrant. 15 When the team entered, they asked Carmona to sit down while the team proceeded with their search. 16
PO2 Alhambra narrated that, during the search, he recovered marijuana, a pouch with six plastic sachets of marijuana, some empty plastic sachets, a disposable lighter, and rolled sticks of marijuana from inside an oven in the kitchen. 17 Purportedly, the officers requested media representative Nelson Dimapilis (Dimapilis) to take photographs of the items. 18 PO2 Alhambra marked the items with Carmona's initials, "ECC." 19
Thereafter, PO1 Dimla conducted a preventive search on Carmona's person for any concealed weapons. 20 Instead, he recovered a plastic sachet with suspected dried marijuana leaves. 21 PO1 Dimla also narrated that he marked this with his initials "RBD," and handed it over to PO3 Cuadla for inventory. 22 Subsequently, the officers asked Carmona's mother to sign the Certification of Orderly Search. 23 They also executed a Certificate of Inventory of the items seized, which was signed by the witnesses: (1) media representative Dimapilis; and (2) BarangayKagawad Ritchie Alzona (Alzona). 24
When the search was concluded, PO3 Cuadla took custody of the items seized. 25 Upon their return to the police station, PO3 Cuadla prepared a request for laboratory examination. 26 Thereafter, the seized items were turned over to PO1 Dimla. 27 On the same day, PO1 Dimla and PO2 Alhambra took the items to the crime laboratory, where the seized items were received by one Senior Police Officer 2 M.A. Carasco. 28 The contents of the seized sachets tested positive for marijuana as evidenced by Chemistry Report No. LD-056-12, signed by the forensic chemist, Police Chief Inspector Grace Plantilla Bombasi (PCI Bombasi). 29
Version of the Defense
For his part, Carmona denied the charges against him. He averred that he was asleep at 4:00 a.m. on 27 January 2012. To his surprise, he heard someone calling and knocking at their door. 30 When Carmona's mother opened the door to check, he heard a man talking to her. 31 The police then showed the search warrant to Carmona's mother and entered their house. 32 Carmona narrated that PO2 Alhambra went to his room and did not allow him to go out, until he heard someone shout "Sir, positive!" 33 At this point, he was brought to the sala and was asked whether the items were his. 34 According to Carmona, he denied the accusation and even asked the officers to conduct finger-printing just to prove that the items do not belong to him. 35
Ruling of the RTC
In its Decision 36 dated 03 November 2017, the RTC acquitted Carmona of the charge for violation of Section 12, Article II of RA 9165, but convicted him of the charge for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165. The fallo of the RTC Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. 18940-2012-C, accused ERWIN CARMONA y CLARIANES is ACQUITTED of the charge for violation of Section 12 of R.A. 9165 due to insufficiency of evidence.
In Criminal Case No. 18941-2012-C, this court finds accused ERWIN CARMONA y CLARIANES GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11 of R.A. 9165 and, accordingly, sentences him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00).
The Branch Clerk is DIRECTED to turn over to the Chief of Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency Crime Laboratory, the subject drugs covered by Chemistry Report No. LD-056-12, to be disposed of in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED. 37
In acquitting Carmona of the charge for Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia under Section 12, Article II of RA 9165, the RTC held that the prosecution failed to establish the elements of the offense. The trial court held that it was not sufficiently shown that the disposable lighter and other empty small plastic sachets were used or intended for sniffing or ingesting marijuana. 38
On the other hand, the RTC explained that based on the statements of PO1 Dimla and PO2 Alhambra, the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165. 39 The RTC gave more credence to the positive and categorical testimonies of the officers, who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, over Carmona's bare denial. 40 Likewise, there was substantial compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. 41 Hence, the RTC concluded that the integrity and evidentiary value of the drug seized were duly preserved.
Aggrieved, Carmona appealed the case to the CA.
Ruling of the CA
In its assailed Decision 42 dated 20 May 2019, the CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC. The dispositive portion of the ruling states:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated 3 November 2017 of Branch 92 of the Regional Trial Court of Calamba City, Laguna is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 43
First, the CA found no merit in Carmona's contention that the Information was invalid. 44 While he argued that the officer who filed the same had no authority to do so because it was not approved by the provincial prosecutor, the CA noted that the Information stated that it was filed by Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Miguel Noel T. Ocampo (APP Ocampo) as "Assistant Provincial Prosecutor-Designate." 45 Further, it indicated that APP Ocampo approved it "[b]y the authority of the Provincial Prosecutor." 46 Consequently, the CA ruled that APP Ocampo was duly authorized to file the Information. 47
Second, the CA confirmed that the prosecution was able to establish the elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs. 48 It also found nothing irregular in the manner by which the officers implemented the search warrant. 49 The CA agreed with the RTC's decision to uphold the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty by the officers involved in this case. Further, the prosecution was able to prove an unbroken chain of custody. 50 Thus, it sustained the conviction of Carmona under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165.
Carmona filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was likewise denied by the CA in its Resolution 51 dated 09 December 2019. Hence, the instant petition.
Carmona raises the following arguments to assail his conviction: (1) the RTC had no jurisdiction to try and decide the case due to a flawed Information, specifically, that it was merely approved by APP Ocampo; (2) failure of the police officers to observe the mandatory procedural safeguards in the handling of the items seized, including the requirement of the presence of the insulating witnesses; (3) the items seized were not delivered to the court that issued the search warrant, in violation of Section 12 (a), Rule 126 of the Rules of Court; and (4) a conviction under RA 9165 can only be obtained after the prosecution discharges its burden to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue
The sole issue for resolution in this case is whether the CA erred in affirming the conviction of Carmona under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165.
Ruling of the Court
The petition has merit.
Considering their unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses on the stand, the factual findings of the trial courts are given the highest respect. 52 This principle holds more weight when the findings of the trial court are affirmed by the appellate court. 53 However, an exception to this rule is if there are facts and circumstances of substance which may have been overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied by the lower courts. 54 In this case, We find that the exception applies. Particularly, the RTC and the CA failed to consider procedural lapses on the part of the police officers, which would necessarily alter the result of the case.
At the outset, the issue raised by Carmona regarding the validity of the Information must be addressed. Indeed, Section 4, Rule 112 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure states that "[n]o complaint or information may be filed or dismissed by an investigating prosecutor without the prior written or authority or approval of the provincial or city prosecutor or chief prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his [or her] deputy." Hence, an Information may be quashed due to non-compliance with this requirement, 55 through a motion filed before the accused enters his or her plea. 56
However, in Villa Gomez v. People57 (Villa Gomez case), this Court has clarified that an Information filed by a handling prosecutor without prior approval from the provincial, city, or chief state prosecutor will be rendered as merely quashable, until waived by the accused expressly or impliedly. 58 The Court emphasized that there is currently no penal law that requires an Information to be personally signed by the provincial, city, or chief state prosecutor in order for courts to acquire jurisdiction over the case. 59 Notably, the Court abandoned previous doctrines that the lack of approval of the provincial, city, or chief state prosecutor on the face of the Information shall divest the court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused and the subject matter in a criminal case. 60 Ultimately, the Court concluded that such deficiency is merely formal and not jurisdictional. 61
Here, APP Ocampo signed the Information as "Assistant Provincial Prosecutor-Designate" of the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Laguna. Verily, he signed and approved it "by the authority of the Provincial Prosecutor." Moreover, despite the availability of this ground to quash the Information, the accused raised this issue for the first time on appeal.
Following Villa Gomez, the defect in the Information is considered as merely formal and not jurisdictional. As such, Carmona should be deemed to have waived his right to question the propriety of the Information when he failed to timely raise this in a motion to quash prior to his arraignment.
We now rule on the substantial merits of the case. The elements of the Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 are: (1) the accused was in possession of an item identified as a prohibited drug; (2) his or her possession was not authorized by law; and (3) accused freely and consciously possessed said drug. 62 The rule is that mere possession of a dangerous drug constitutes prima facie evidence, which is sufficient to convict an accused. 63
In addition to establishing the aforesaid elements, the prosecution bears the burden of establishing the identity of the illegal drugs seized with moral certainty, by accounting for each link in the chain of custody. 64
The links in the chain of custody are as follows: (1) the seizure and marking of the illegal drugs seized by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the illegal drugs seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover by the investigation officer of the illegal drugs to the forensic chemist for the laboratory examination; and (4) the turnover of the marked illegal drugs by the forensic chemist to the court. 65
Moreover, as Carmona purportedly committed the crime in 2012, the provisions of RA 9165 prior to its amendment by RA 10640 66 should apply. Section 21 thereof provides the requirements for the custody and disposition of confiscated dangerous drugs, particularly, the presence of the insulating witnesses, viz.:
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 seized, 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; (Emphasis supplied.)
We find that there were gaps in the chain of custody that have been left unaccounted for. A perusal of the records would reveal that the prosecution failed to prove compliance with the procedural safeguards under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165.
PO2 Alhambra narrated that the search happened at around 4:00 a.m. of 27 January 2012. After the seizure of the suspected marijuana and paraphernalia, PO2 Alhambra purportedly marked them at the crime scene with Carmona's initials. Subsequently, the seized illegal drugs were handed over to PO3 Cuadla. The prosecution's witnesses confirmed that it was PO3 Cuadla who prepared the Receipt/Inventory of the Property Seized and the Certification of Orderly Search, while they were still at the crime scene. Further, it was PO3 Cuadla who prepared the request for laboratory examination upon the team's return to the police station. He only handed the seized items back to PO2 Alhambra when it was time to deliver the same to the crime laboratory.
In the case of People v. Macaumbang y Ali, 67 the Court explained the relevance of the chain of custody rule in cases involving dangerous drugs:
The chain of custody rule ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. The oft-cited case of Mallillin v. People of the Philippines clarified what qualifies as evidence of an unbroken chain of custody:
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. (Emphasis supplied.)
Here, the prosecution did not present PO3 Cuadla as one of its witnesses. The prosecution averred that PO3 Cuadla's testimony would merely corroborate the statements of PO1 Dimla and PO2 Alhambra. Nonetheless, it bears reiterating that it was PO3 Cuadla who handled the items seized from the time the officers left the crime scene up to their return to the police station.
The prosecution's omission renders the Court unable to determine with certainty if steps were taken by PO3 Cuadla to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the items seized, to avoid tampering or switching. This procedural lapse is further aggravated by the failure of the officers to present a Chain of Custody Form, which could have been used as reference to confirm and identify the specific persons who handled the items seized.
There was also failure to comply with the presence of the insulating witnesses. In People v. De Dios, 68 the Court clarified the requirement of the presence of the witnesses prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, and after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640:
To establish the identity of the dangerous drugs with moral certainty, the prosecution must be able to account for each link of the chain of custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime. As part of the chain of custody procedure, the law requires, inter alia, that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation of the same. The law further requires that the said inventory and photography be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official; or (b) if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media. The law requires the presence of these witnesses primarily "to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence." (Citations omitted.)
As mentioned, the provisions of RA 9165, prior to its amendment by RA 10640, applies in Carmona's case. However, as the RTC noted, PO2 Alhambra and PO1 Dimla both confirmed that the search and inventory of the items seized were conducted only in the presence of media representative Dimapilis and BarangayKagawad Alzona. 69 This was, as noted by the RTC, also confirmed by their signatures in the Receipt/Physical Inventory of the Confiscated Items. 70 Clearly, the officers failed to secure the presence of a DOJ representative, despite the clear requirement under the applicable law.
Granted, the procedural safeguards under RA 9165 are not meant to thwart the efforts of our police officers in curtailing the illegal sale and possession of prohibited drugs. In this regard, the legislature has crystallized in RA 10640 that "noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items." 71
Nonetheless, whether before or after the amendment of RA 9165, it shall be the duty of the prosecution to show justifiable reason why the procedural safeguards, including the requirement of the presence of the insulating witnesses, were not complied with. 72 In addition, the prosecution is expected to establish that the officers were able to take steps to preserve the integrity of the items seized. 73
In this case, the officers failed to show any justifiable reason why they failed to secure the presence of a DOJ representative, despite having sufficient time to do so. In fact, the prosecution was not able to show that earnest efforts were exerted by the officers to request the presence of a DOJ representative. This, coupled with the unexplained gaps in the chain of custody, puts doubt that measures were sufficiently taken to ensure the integrity of the items seized.
Lastly, Carmona alleged that the officers did not observe the provisions of Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court since they failed to deliver the seized items, together with an inventory thereof, to the court which issued the search warrant. 74 In his Motion for Reconsideration before the CA, Carmona pointed out that the officers confirmed the filing of the Return of the search warrant, while also admitting that they failed to include the same as part of the evidence. 75 Nonetheless, We find that this issue has become immaterial, given the procedural lapses warranting the acquittal of Carmona.
Ultimately, We find that the prosecution failed to account for each link in the chain of custody. The circumstances discussed, taken collectively, puts doubt on the prosecution's assertion that the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were sufficiently preserved. As the prosecution failed to prove Carmona's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, his acquittal should follow as a matter of course.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is hereby GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated 20 May 2019 and Resolution dated 09 December 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 40936 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, petitioner Erwin Carmona y Clarianes is ACQUITTED of the charge for violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. He is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless he is detained 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 days from receipt.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
by:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 10-33.
2. Id. at 34-61; penned by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos and concurred in by Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a Member of this Court).
3. Id. at 63-65; penned by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos and concurred in by Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin.
4. Id. at 86-96; penned by Acting Presiding Judge Wilhelmina B. Jorge-Wagan.
5. Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES." Approved: 07 June 2002.
6. Id. at 35.
7. Id. at 36.
8. Id. at 38.
9. Id. at 39.
10. Id. at 36.
11. Id. at 36-37.
12. Id. at 37.
13. Id. at 36-37.
14. Id.
15. Id.
16. Id.
17. Id.
18. Id.
19. Id.
20. Id.
21. Id.
22. Id.
23. Id.
24. Id.
25. Id. at 38.
26. Id.
27. Id.
28. Id.
29. Id.
30. Id.
31. Id.
32. Id.
33. Id.
34. Id.
35. Id.
36. Id. at 86-96.
37. Id. at 34-35.
38. Id. at 93.
39. Id. at 91.
40. Id.
41. Id. at 93.
42. Id. at 34-61.
43. Id. at 60.
44. Id. at 41.
45. Id.
46. Id.
47. Id. at 42.
48. Id. at 45.
49. Id. at 48.
50. Id. at 51-52.
51. Id. at 63-65.
52. Ruego v. People, G.R. No. 226745, 03 May 2021.
53. Balina y Lanuzo v. People, G.R. No. 205950, 12 January 2021.
54. People v. Mariano, G.R. No. 247522, 28 February 2022.
55. RULES OF COURT, Rule 117, Sec. 3.
56. RULES OF COURT, Rule 117, Sec. 1.
57. G.R. No. 216824, 10 November 2020.
58. Id.
59. Id.
60. Id.
61. Id.
62. See People v. Crispo, 828 Phil. 416, 429 (2018) citing People v. Bio, 753 Phil. 730, 736 (2015).
63. People v. Quijano y Sanding, G.R. No. 247558, 19 February 2020.
64. Saban v. People, G.R. No. 253812, 28 June 2021, citing People v. Año, 828 Phil. 439, 448 (2018); People v. Crispo, supra; People v. Sanchez, 827 Phil. 457, 465 (2018); People v. Magsano, 826 Phil. 947, 958 (2018); People v. Manansala, 826 Phil. 578, 586 (2018); People v. Miranda, 824 Phil. 1042, 1050 (2018); People v. Mamangon, 824 Phil. 728, 735-736 (2018); and People v. Viterbo, 739 Phil. 593, 601 (2014).
65. People v. De Vera, G.R. No. 229364, 16 October 2019 citing People v. Dela Torre, G.R. No. 225789, 29 July 2019; Jocson v. People, G.R. No. 199644, 19 June 2019 citing People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 231 (2015).
66. Entitled "AN ACT TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF THE GOVERNMENT, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE 'COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002'." Approved: 15 July 2014.
67. G.R. No. 208836, 01 April 2019, citing Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576-594 (2008).
68. G.R. No. 243664, 22 January 2020.
69. Rollo, p. 89.
70. Id.
71. Republic Act No. 10640, Sec. 1.
72. People v. Macapundag, 807 Phil. 234, 243 (2017).
73. People v. Sanico, G.R. No. 240431, 07 July 2020, citing People v. Saragena, 817 Phil. 117-146 (2017).
74. RULES OF COURT, Rule 126, Sec. 12.
75. Rollo, p. 117.