FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 248501. March 2, 2022.]
RODRIGO T. DE VERA, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 2, 2022which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 248501 (Rodrigo T. De Vera, petitioner vs. People of the Philippines, respondent).
This is an appeal from the January 23, 2019 Decision 1 and July 22, 2019 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 37703. The CA affirmed the June 11, 2015 Judgment 3 of the Regional Trial Court, Santa Cruz, Laguna, Branch 28 (RTC), in Criminal Case No. SC-13667, finding Rodrigo T. De Vera (petitioner) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Antecedents
Petitioner was charged with the crime of illegal possession of 0.02 gram of white crystalline substance containing methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) in an Information dated July 22, 2009, the accusatory portion of which reads:
That on June 24, 2009 at about 7:30 o'clock in the afternoon [sic] at Barangay Maytalang Uno, Municipality of Lumban, Province of Laguna and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized or permitted by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, control and custody one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.02 gram of METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (shabu), a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
During arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. 5 After pre-trial was terminated, trial on the merits ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
Police Officer 1 Alfred T. Ables (PO1 Ables)6 testified for the prosecution. 7
PO1 Ables narrated that sometime in the afternoon of June 24, 2009, a confidential informant (CI) arrived at the Lumban Municipal Police Station and informed him that a certain Hilda de Vera y Flores alias "Idang" was selling shabu at Barangay Maytalang Uno, Lumban, Laguna. PO1 Ables relayed the information to the Chief of Police. 8 A buy-bust team was thereafter formed consisting of Police Officer 2 Amadeo Carpio (PO2 Carpio), Police Officer 1 Vergel Sayse (PO1 Sayse), Police Officer 1 Arvin Maguiat (Maguiat), and PO1 Ables. 9
After preparing the necessary documents, the buy-bust team proceeded to Barangay Maytalang Uno, Lumban, Laguna. Before the buy-bust team reached the place where Idang was reported to be located, a man wearing a blue t-shirt and white pants, later identified as petitioner, approached the buy-bust team and asked the CI and the poseur-buyer, if they wanted to "score." The CI answered "Dos," referring to P200.00 worth of shabu. PO1 Ables was about to approach petitioner and the CI when petitioner shouted, "Tangina, pulis pala ang kasama mo!" PO1 Ables immediately held petitioner, which prevented the latter from running away. Petitioner then had a plastic sachet in his right hand. The buy-bust team apprehended petitioner and confiscated the plastic sachet he was holding. PO1 Ables marked the confiscated plastic sachet with his initials "ATA." 10
Thereafter, petitioner was brought to the Lumban Municipal Police Station. PO1 Ables had custody of the seized item during that time. Upon arrival at the police station, PO1 Ables prepared a request for laboratory examination. Thereafter, he and PO1 Sayse brought petitioner and the specimen to the Regional Crime Laboratory Office at Sta. Cruz, Laguna. 11
Chemistry Report No. LD-126-098 12 revealed the one (1) small heat-sealed transparent sachet tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The testimony of Police Chief Inspector Donna Villa P. Huelgas (PCI Huelgas) was dispensed with after the prosecution and the defense stipulated on the following:
(1) The witness is an expert in forensic chemistry and an employee of PNP Regional Crime Laboratory;
(2) In the discharge of her duties as a forensic chemist, her office received a letter-request from the Municipal Police Station of Lumban, Laguna for laboratory examination of one (1) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing suspected shabu that was found in the possession of the accused;
(3) Upon receipt of the said request, she conducted a laboratory examination on the same, after which she issued a Chemistry Report stating that the examination yielded positive to the test for methamphetamine hydrochloride;
(4) The witness has no personal knowledge as to the origin of the substance subject of the chemistry report;
(5) She was not the one who received the specimen from the requesting party;
(6) There were no photographs of the specimen that was attached to the request for laboratory examination;
(7) The accused was not present during the conduct of the examination;
(8) The accused was not informed about the result of the examination; and
(9) There are other chemicals or substance which when subjected to the same chemical examination will produce the same result as that of an illegal drug although it does not necessarily contain illegal drugs[.] 13
Version of the Defense
Petitioner testified that on June 24, 2009, he visited his children at Barangay Maytalang, Lumban, Laguna. Thereafter, he drove a tricycle and headed home to Barangay Concepcion, Lumban, Laguna. All of a sudden, a red car with three (3) passengers, whom petitioner later identified as PO2 Carpio, PO1 Sayse, and PO1 Ables, blocked his way. Said passengers alighted from the car and poked a gun at him. They then brought petitioner to a safehouse near the highway at Lumban, Laguna, wherein PO2 Carpio demanded P50,000.00 from him, with a warning that if he failed to give in to their demand, they would plant evidence against him. After sometime, Racquel de Leon, petitioner's cousin gave the P50,000.00 to PO2 Carpio who then showed petitioner a plastic sachet and told him that he would only be charged with violation of Sec. 11 of R.A. No. 9165. 14
On cross-examination, petitioner confirmed that he was arrested for possessing one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of shabu. 15
The RTC Ruling
In its June 11, 2015 Judgment, the RTC found petitioner guilty as charged. It held that the prosecution was able to duly establish all the elements for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Sec. 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. The RTC declared that the chain of custody over the subject illegal substance remained unbroken. Moreover, petitioner's mere denial of the accusations against him cannot prevail over the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties by the police officers. 16 The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused RODRIGO DE VERA Y TAMAYO GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of Violation of Section 11, Article II, R.A. [No.] 9165 and sentencing her to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate term of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, as maximum, and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00).
The specimen of shabu subject of this case with a weight of 0.02 gram is ordered confiscated in favor of the government and the Branch Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to transmit the same to the appropriate government agency for proper disposition.
SO ORDERED.17
Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the CA.
The CA Ruling
In its January 23, 2019 Decision, the CA affirmed the RTC's judgment of conviction. It too found that the prosecution clearly established the elements of the crime charged and that the requirements under Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 were substantially complied with. It noted that the integrity and evidentiary value of the marked seized item were preserved. The CA held that the prosecution was able to establish an unbroken chain of custody and the preservation of the corpus delicti. According to the CA, the prosecution was also able to prove that the item seized from petitioner was the same item presented to the trial court. The CA did not give credence to petitioner's defenses of denial and extortion theory. The decretal portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated June 11, 2015 of Branch 28, Regional Trial Court of Santa Cruz, Laguna, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.18
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA in its July 22, 2019 Resolution. Hence, this instant petition.
ISSUE
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ERROR IN AFFIRMING THE PETITIONER'S CONVICTION DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE THE ELEMENTS OF ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS. 19
Petitioner claims that the prosecution failed to prove all the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. He insists that the police officers planted the prohibited drug to extort money from him. He also claims that the arresting officers failed to comply with the procedure laid down in Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, particularly the conduct of inventory, photographing of the seized drug, and the presence of the insulating witnesses during the marking and inventory of the seized item. The prosecution also failed to establish the requisite turnover of the illegal drug by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer, and by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination. Lastly, petitioner avers that the presumption that the police officers regularly performed their duties does not apply in the instant case. 20
In its Comment, 21 the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) urges the Court to affirm the challenged decision of the RTC because the prosecution had duly proved all the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. It maintains that the chain of custody rule was complied with and that the arresting officers were able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item. The OSG claims that the marking of the seized item was already sufficient to preserve its integrity, and that it would just be superfluous to make an inventory of the same. Moreover, it was proven that only PO1 Ables took custody of the seized item from the time it was confiscated from the petitioner until it was submitted to the laboratory for examination.
In his Reply, 22 petitioner reiterates and amplifies the arguments he proffered in his petition.
The Court's Ruling
The Court finds the petition meritorious.
Noncompliance with
To sustain a conviction for the offense of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be proved: (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 must also be established beyond reasonable doubt. 23
The information here alleged that the crime charged was committed on June 24, 2009. The governing law, therefore, is R.A. No. 9165 before its amendment by R.A. No. 10640 24 on July 15, 2014. Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 provides the procedure to ensure the integrity of the corpus delicti, 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 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[.]
The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 further states:
Section 21. (a) The apprehending officer/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: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with 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 of and custody over said items. 25
It is of utmost importance that the integrity and identity of the seized drugs must be clearly shown to have been duly preserved with moral certainty. 26 "This means that on top of the elements of possession or illegal sale, the fact that the substance illegally sold or possessed is, in the first instance, the very substance adduced in court must likewise be established with the same exacting degree of certitude as that required in sustaining a conviction." 27 The chain of custody rule performs this function as it ensures that any unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. 28
Based on Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, when the apprehending team seizes purported dangerous drugs or paraphernalia, a physical inventory of the seized items and taking of photographs of the same must be conducted immediately after the seizure and confiscation. As part of the chain of custody procedure, the law requires that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after the seizure and confiscation of the same. 29 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 witnesses, namely: a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official. 30
In this case, the prosecution failed to prove that the police officers conducted an inventory and took photographs of the seized item in the presence of the required insulating witnesses, particularly, (1) the accused or his representative or counsel; (2) representative of the media, (3) representative of the DOJ, and (4) any elected public official. Notably, the requirement under Sec. 21 is mandatory. In several cases, the Court held that failure to immediately conduct any inventory and photography of the seized items shall constitute as noncompliance with Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165. 31
The testimony of PO1 Ables was inconsistent with the submission of the OSG that the police officers failed to prepare an inventory of the seized item. The OSG explained that it would be superfluous to make an inventory of the seized item because it was already marked by PO1 Ables. PO1 Ables, on the other hand, testified:
ATTY. LANDIZA:
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Did you prepare an inventory of seized evidence?
A: We made an inventory at our police station, mam. 32
Further, nowhere in PO1 Ables' testimony was there any mention anent compliance with the required photography. Notably, the prosecution's offer of documentary evidence did not bear the inventory and photographs. Hence, in the absence of competent proof that the required inventory and photography were complied with, sans any justification therefor, the chain of custody is considered to have been breached. 33
In People v. Alagarme 34 and People v. Arposeple, 35 the Court ruled that the failure of the arresting officers to prepare the required inventory and photography of the seized dangerous drug militated against the guilt of an accused, for then the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti cannot be deemed to have been preserved.
Anent the insulating witnesses, it is obvious from the testimony of PO1 Ables that none of the three required witnesses was present at the time of marking of the seized item. The CA even acknowledged the absence of the required witnesses but nevertheless opined that the integrity of the seized item was duly preserved.
Saving clause not applicable
While the chain of custody has been a critical issue leading to acquittals in drug cases, the Court has nevertheless held that noncompliance with the prescribed procedures does not necessarily result in the conclusion that the identity of the seized drugs has been compromised so that an acquittal should follow. 36
As a rule, strict compliance with the foregoing requirements is mandatory. However, following the IRR of R.A. No. 9165, the courts may allow a deviation from these requirements if the following requisites under the "saving clause" are availing: (1) the existence of "justifiable grounds" allowing departure from the rule on strict compliance; and (2) the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team. If these two elements concur, the seizure and custody over the confiscated items shall not be rendered void and invalid; ergo, the integrity of the corpus delicti remains untarnished. 37
In Valencia v. People, 38 it was underscored that the arresting officers are under obligation, should they be unable to comply with the procedures laid down under Sec. 21, to explain why the procedure was not followed and to prove that the reason provided a justifiable ground. Otherwise, the requisites under the law would merely be fancy ornaments that may or may not be disregarded by the arresting officers at their own convenience. 39 On the other hand, according to People v. Adobar40 and People v. Galisim, 41 the integrity of the seized illegal drugs, despite noncompliance with Sec. 21 requires establishing the four links in the chain of custody: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the dangerous drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the dangerous drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the dangerous drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked dangerous drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.
In this case, the prosecution failed to offer a justifiable ground for the police officers' noncompliance with Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165. As stated earlier, the prosecution did not explain why its evidence did not bear the mandatory inventory and photographs under the law. The OSG even admitted that the police officers failed to prepare an inventory of the seized item. Verily, this failure to provide a justifiable ground for noncompliance with the law renders the saving clause inapplicable.
Further, the Court finds that the prosecution failed to prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item were preserved; particularly, the first and fourth links in the chain of custody were not established.
The first link involves the marking. In People v. Binasing, 42 the Court required that the marking be done in the presence of the accused or his representative or counsel and the insulating witnesses. The law mandates that these witnesses be present during the marking, the actual inventory, and the taking of photographs of the seized items to deter the possible planting of evidence. 43 The failure of the police officers to comply is fatal to the prosecution's case. In People v. Mendoza, 44 the Court emphasized that the presence of the insulating witnesses is a safeguard against the evils of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. 45
Here, the police officers marked the seized item without any insulating witnesses. The records are bereft of any explanation why the police officers failed to secure the required witnesses. The prosecution likewise offered no sufficient justification as to the absence of the three (3) required witnesses during the marking. It must be pointed out that the police officers went to the area to conduct a buy-bust operation against a certain "Idang." Considering that a buy-bust operation is a planned activity, the police officers should have prepared for the operation and invited the required witnesses. However, such was not the case here. There was no showing that the police officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of the required witnesses during that time.
Further, it must be pointed out that the seized item was only 0.02 gram of purported shabu, which is a significantly minuscule amount. The Court has held that where the amount of narcotics seized is minuscule, a stricter adherence to the requirements of Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is required to preserve the evidentiary value of the seized drugs. 46 The prosecution should have been more circumspect in ensuring compliance with the chain of custody rule due to the minuscule amount involved, considering that it is more prone to tampering and switching.
Aside from the noncompliance with the rules on marking, the Court finds that the fourth link in the chain of custody was also not clearly established by the prosecution.
The fourth link refers to the turnover and submission of the dangerous drug from the forensic chemist to the court. 47 In drug-related cases, it is of paramount necessity that the forensic chemist testifies as to details pertinent to the handling and analysis of the dangerous drug submitted for examination, i.e., when and from whom the dangerous drug was received; what identifying labels or other things accompanied it; description of the specimen; and the container it was in, as the case may be. 48 Further, the forensic chemist must also identify the name and method of analysis used in determining the chemical composition of the subject specimen. 49
In this case, PCI Huelgas did not testify in court; the parties merely entered into general stipulations on her testimony. However, the stipulations are bereft of information regarding the condition of the seized item while in her custody and the precautions she undertook to preserve its integrity. Moreover, PCI Huelgas stipulated that she was not the one who received the specimen from the requesting party. Hence, there was a break in the chain of custody as the prosecution failed to name the person who received the specimen in the crime laboratory.
Absent any testimony regarding the management, storage, and preservation of the illegal drug allegedly seized herein after its qualitative examination, the fourth link in the chain of custody of the seized item could not be deemed established to a moral certainty. 50 This casts serious doubts on the identity and the integrity of the corpus delicti. In Mallillin v. People, 51 the Court explained:
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. 52
Also, it is worthy to note that the prosecution did not present a chain of custody form to prove how the alleged sachet of dangerous drugs was handled, the different hands that gained possession of the item, and the methods the handlers used to secure the integrity and evidentiary value of the illegal substance.
In convicting petitioner, both the RTC and the CA relied so much on the presumption of regularity in the conduct of the police officers' duties and the weakness of petitioner's defense. However, the presumption of regularity cannot trump the constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. 53 Also, in this case, said presumption did not arise because of compelling evidence on record of the repeated breach by the arresting officers of the chain of custody rule.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The January 23, 2019 Decision and July 22, 2019 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 37703, which affirmed the June 11, 2015 Judgment of the Regional Trial Court, Santa Cruz, Laguna, Branch 28, in Criminal Case No. SC-13667, finding petitioner Rodrigo T. De Vera guilty of violating Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Rodrigo T. De Vera is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
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. 37-54; penned by Associate Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Diy with Associate Justices Jane Aurora C. Lantion and Perpetua T. Atal-Paño, concurring.
2.Id. at 57-60.
3. Records, pp. 110-114; penned by Presiding Judge Iluminado M. Dela Peña.
4.Id. at 2.
5.Id. at 61.
6. Also referred to as PO2 Alfredo Ables in TSN, October 3, 2013.
7.Id. at 39-40.
8.Id. at 40.
9.Id.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 40-41.
12. Records, p. 12.
13.Id. at 75-76; Order dated December 8, 2011.
14.Rollo, p. 41.
15.Id.
16. Records, pp. 112-113.
17.Id. at 114.
18.Rollo, p. 53.
19.Id. at 19.
20.Id. at 20-28.
21.Id. at 119-132.
22.Id. at 151-161.
23.People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 229053, July 17, 2019, as cited in Izon v. People, G.R. No. 222509 (Notice), March 3, 2021.
24. 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." As the Court noted in People v. Gutierrez, 842 Phil. 681 (2018) and Matabilas v. People (see G.R. No. 243615, November 11, 2019), R.A. No. 10640 was approved on July 15, 2014. Under Section 5 thereof, it shall "take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation." R.A. No. 10640 was published on July 23, 2014, in The Philippine Star (Vol. XXVIII, No. 359, Philippine Star Metro section, p. 21) and Manila Bulletin (Vol. 499, No. 23; World News section, p. 6). Thus, R.A. No. 10640 appears to have become effective on August 7, 2014.
25. Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, IRR of R.A. No. 9165, August 30, 2002.
26.People v. Arellaga, G.R. No. 231796, August 24, 2020.
27.Id., citing People v. Adrid, 705 Phil. 654, 670 (2013).
28.Id., citing Fajardo v. People, 691 Phil. 752, 758-759 (2012).
29.Matabilas v. People, G.R. No. 243615, November 11, 2019.
30.See Sec. 21 (1) and (2) Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR.
31.People v. Paran, G.R. No. 220447, November 25, 2019; People v. Casacop, 755 Phil. 265, 283 (2015); People v. De la Cruz, 666 Phil. 593, 610 (2011).
32. TSN, October 3, 2013, p. 2.
33.Largo v. People, G.R. No. 201293, June 19, 2019.
34. 754 Phil. 449, 457 (2015).
35. 821 Phil. 340, 371 (2017).
36. See People v. Denoman, 612 Phil, 1165, 1178 (2009).
37.People v. Luna, 828 Phil. 671, 686 (2018).
38. 725 Phil. 268 (2014).
39.Id. at 286.
40. 832 Phil. 731, 763 (2018).
41. G.R. No. 231305, September 11, 2019.
42. 835 Phil. 673 (2018), as cited in Jayectin v. People, G.R. No. 247309 (Notice), October 7, 2020.
43.Id. at 680.
44. 736 Phil. 749 (2014), as cited in Jayectin v. People, supra.
45.Id. at 764.
46.Aparente v. People, 818 Phil. 935, 949 (2017).
47.People v. Nocum, G.R. No. 239905, January 20, 2021 (Notice), citing People v. Hementiza, 807 Phil. 1017, 1037 (2017).
48.Id.
49. Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002: Guidelines on the Custody and Disposition of Seized Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, and Laboratory Equipment.
50.People v. Ubungen, 836 Phil. 888, 902 (2018).
51. 576 Phil. 576 (2008).
52.Id. at 587.
53. See People v. Ordiz, G.R. No. 206767, September 11, 2019.