SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 238855. September 15, 2021.]
ALFREDO PARUNGAO, JR. y LACSA, A.K.A. YOYONG, SANDY BIENVENUTO y BONEO, A.K.A. POTPOT, petitioners, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated15 September 2021which reads as follows: DETACa
"G.R. No. 238855 (Alfredo Parungao, Jr. y Lacsa, a.k.a. Yoyong, Sandy Bienvenuto y Boneo, a.k.a. Potpot v. People of the Philippines). — The instant case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 dated June 6, 2018 (Petition) filed by petitioners Alfredo Parungao, Jr. y Lacsa, a.k.a. Yoyong (Parungao) and Sandy Bienvenuto y Boneo, a.k.a. Potpot (Bienvenuto) (collectively, the petitioners). The petition seeks a review of the Decision 2 (assailed Decision) dated October 27, 2017 and the Resolution 3 (assailed Resolution) dated April 17, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed in toto the Joint Decision 4 (RTC Decision) dated August 24, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Valenzuela City, Branch 172.
I. FACTS
The parties to the instant case offer divergent narration of the facts.
Version of the Petitioners5
According to Bienvenuto, on August 29, 2014, at around 12:00 p.m. to 12:30 p.m., he went to Parungao's house 6 for the purpose of discussing with the latter a house-painting job that they will jointly undertake. Upon arrival at his destination, he noticed that the door of Parungao's house was ajar. As he was about to open the door, a police officer appeared and proceeded to grab and pull him inside the house. While inside, the police officer confiscated his money and mobile phone, and frisked and placed him in handcuffs. Per petitioner Bienvenuto, nothing was found on his person.
Bienvenuto further testified that while inside Parungao's home, he observed that the latter's son, Jade Alfred Parungao (Jade), was in handcuffs and that two (2) other police officers [one (1) male and one (1) female] were present.
On the other hand, Parungao testified that on the same day, at around 12:00 p.m., he returned to his house after having taken one of his children to school. Upon arrival, he knocked at the door and was greeted by a police officer — who was later identified to be Police Officer (PO) 3 Roberto Santillan (PO3 Santillan). PO3 Santillan pulled him inside the house and proceeded to frisk him. According to Parungao, the search yielded nothing. At this point, Bienvenuto and Jade were already inside his house.
Parungao further narrates that after he was searched, PO3 Santillan asked him to go with him, along with other police officers to the police station. This prompted Parungao to inquire with PO3 Santillan why he was being asked to go with them. To this, PO3 Santillan replied: "[h]indi, pagdating sa labasan pakakawalan ko din kayo" — presumably, "labasan" means outside of the house. Notwithstanding PO3 Santillan's reply, petitioners and Jade were brought to the police station, instead of being released. At the police station, Parungao was supposedly asked about certain individuals, all of whom he claims to not know.
The petitioners and Jade were thereafter brought to the Malinta Barangay Hall (Barangay Hall) where they were surprised to be shown various drug paraphernalia and methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu. Parungao quickly disavowed ownership of any of the items but was told to explain himself in court. They were then brought back to the police station where the petitioners were detained and charged with violations of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002" (Dangerous Drugs Act).
Version of the Respondent7
The respondent, for its part, alleged that on August 29, 2014, at around 12:05 p.m., PO3 Santillan, while on duty as part of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Group (SAID-SOTG) of Valenzuela City, received information from a concerned citizen of an on-going pot session in Parungao's house. According to the informant, Parungao was leasing his house to users of illegal drugs at the rate P10.00 to P20.00.
PO3 Santillan forthwith relayed the above information to Police Chief Inspector Allan Rabusa Ruba (PCI Ruba) who immediately formed a team to verify the information. The team was composed of Senior Police Officer 2 Armin Garcia (SPO2 Garcia), PO1 Rumbaua, 8 PO1 Harrison Verde (PO1 Verde), and PO3 Santillan (collectively, the team).
Before proceeding to verify the information, the team coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) and prepared the pre-operation report. Thereafter, the team, together with the informant, proceeded to the house of Parungao.
According to PO3 Santillan, as he was standing three (3) meters from the half-opened door of Parungao's home, he saw three (3) individuals therein having a pot session. This prompted PO3 Santillan to apprehend the individuals — all of whom later identified as petitioners and Jade. Upon their arrest, PO3 Santillan informed them of the law that they had violated and proceeded to search their persons which yielded the following, viz.:
1. One (1) sachet of a white crystalline substance (later on determined to be shabu) from Bienvenuto;
2. One (1) mobile phone battery from Bienvenuto;
3. One (1) lighter from Bienvenuto;
4. One (1) sachet of a white crystalline substance (later on determined to be shabu) from Parungao; and
5. One (1) lighter from Parungao.
Simultaneous to the search on the persons of petitioners and Jade, the other members of the team searched Parungao's house. This led to the discovery and seizure by PO1 Verde of the following items:
1. Two (2) pieces of aluminum foil strip containing traces of what is suspected to be shabu;
2. Six (6) pieces of improvised aluminum tooters;
3. One (1) piece of folded aluminum foil strip;
4. Eight (8) pieces of open transparent sachets containing traces of what is suspected to be shabu;
5. One (1) pair of scissors;
6. Seven (7) pieces of improvised disposable lighter burner;
7. One (1) piece of plastic straw;
8. One (1) case of sunglasses with attached aluminum foil strip; and
9. Thirteen (13) pieces of assorted aluminum foil strip.
All the seized items were placed in an evidence bag by PO3 Santillan. The petitioners, as well as the seized items, were then brought to the Barangay Hall for the purpose of conducting an inventory of the seized items. However, at the Barangay Hall, Barangay Kagawad Romeo Balajadia (Kagawad Balajadia) advised that the inventory of the seized articles should instead be conducted at the Police Community Precinct-4 (PCP4) Valenzuela City Police Station. The advise of Kagawad Balajadia was grounded on the fact that the relatives of the accused were there, and it was supposedly dangerous to conduct the inventory thereat.
Accordingly, the team and the petitioners proceeded to the police station where the inventory of the seized items were conducted. At the police station, the items were marked, placed in a brown envelope, sealed, and then turned over to SPO2 Garcia. The conduct of the inventory were documented through several photographs.
SPO2 Garcia, in turn, prepared the Request for Laboratory Examination dated August 29, 2014 of the seized items, as well as the request for drug-testing of the petitioners. He also prepared the drug inventory form, which were signed by him, PO3 Santillan, and Kagawad Balajadia, as well as the Sworn Statements of the arresting officers.
The seized articles of petitioners were then turned over by SPO2 Garcia to the Crime Laboratory Office of Valenzuela City through PO3 Vallespin, 9 which was then turned over by the latter to PCI Lourdeliza G. Cejes (PCI Cejes), the forensic chemist.
After a qualitative examination, PCI Cejes determined that the sachets with white crystalline substance were positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Likewise, PCI Cejes found that the urine samples of petitioners were positive for methamphetamine. The specimens were then turned over by PCI Cejes to PO1 Renator Wanawan (PO1 Wanawan) for safekeeping.
The foregoing divergent narrations notwithstanding, six (6) separate Informations against the petitioners were filed, to wit:
FOR ALFREDO:
Criminal Case No. 1055-V-14
That on or about August 29, 2014, in Valenzuela City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously maintain a den, dive, or resort located at #148 Tongco Street, Malinta, Valenzuela City, which is used for the delivery, sale and use of dangerous drugs.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Criminal Case No. 1056-V-14
That on or about August 29, 2014, in Valenzuela City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and control one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing zero point zero three (0.03) grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), knowing the same to be a dangerous drugs.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Criminal Case No. 1057-V-14
That on or about August 29, 2014, in Valenzuela City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously use Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), knowing the same to be a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
FOR SANDY:
Criminal Case No. 1058-V-14
That on or about August 29, 2014, in Valenzuela City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and not being an employee of the subject den, dive or resort, as defined in Section 6 of Republic Act 9165 specifically located at No. # 148 Tongco Street, Malinta, Valenzuela City, visited said den, dive or resort knowing fully well that such den, dive or resort is being utilized as haven for use of trading of dangerous drugs.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Criminal Case No. 1059-V-14
That on or about August 29, 2014, in Valenzuela City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and control one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing zero point zero five (0.05) gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), knowing the same to be a dangerous drugs.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Criminal Case No. 1060-V-14
That on or about August 29, 2014, in Valenzuela City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously use Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), knowing the same to be a dangerous drugs. 10
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Proceedings before the RTC
In an Order dated September 10, 2014, upon motion of the respondent, the six (6) cases were consolidated. Shortly thereafter, or on September 16, 2014, the petitioners, assisted by counsel, entered the plea of "not guilty" to the charges levied against them. After trial, the RTC Decision rendered the petitioners guilty for having violated Section 11, Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act, to wit:
WHEREFORE, the court finds accused Alfredo Parungao, Jr. y Lacsa a.k.a. "Yoyong" and accused Sandy Bienvenuto y Boneo a.k.a. "Potpot" guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals for the crime of violations of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 in Criminal Case No. 1056-V-14 and Criminal Case No. 1059-V-14 respectively, and each are hereby sentenced suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months and to pay a fine of Php300,000.00.
The time spent by both the accused in actual detention shall be credited in the service of their sentences.
Accused Alfredo Parungao, Jr. is acquitted in Crim. Case No. 1055-V-14 and Crim. Case No. 1057-V-15, for insufficiency of evidence.
On the other hand, accused Sandy Bienvenuto is acquitted in Crim. Case No. 1058-V-14 and Crim. Case No. 1060-V-14, for insufficiency of evidence.
The Branch Clerk of Court is hereby directed to immediately transmit/deliver to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency the drugs and paraphernalias subjects of these cases for proper disposal.
SO ORDERED. 11
Proceedings before the CA
Firm in their assertion of innocence, the petitioners, through counsel, appealed the RTC Decision before the CA. However, the CA was unconvinced of the assignment of errors and the arguments set forth in the petitioners' Brief for the Accused-Appellants dated April 17, 2017. 12 Thus, in the assailed Decision, the CA held:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The RTC Joint Decision dated August 24, 2016 is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED. 13
In denying the asseverations of petitioners, the CA emphasized that all the elements of Section 11 of the Dangerous Drugs Act were established beyond reasonable doubt by the respondent. The defenses proffered by the petitioners, i.e., denial, frame-up, and alibi were found weak and could not "prevail over the affirmative testimony of truthful witnesses" 14 of the respondent. Additionally, the CA rejected the objections of petitioners on respondent's compliance with the chain of custody rule. The CA emphasized that the respondent "was able to account for every link in the chain of custody of the plastic sachets of shabu from the time they were seized by the police officers up to the time that the same were turned over to the RTC[.]" 15
Petitioners were thus constrained to file a Motion for Reconsideration in view of the adverse ruling in the assailed Decision, 16 which was denied by the CA in the assailed Resolution. In the assailed Resolution, the CA found that the petitioners raised issues and/or arguments which were already "considered, weighed, and passed upon" previously. 17
III. n ISSUE
The sole question for Our consideration is whether the petitioners are guilty of violating Section 11 of the Dangerous Drugs Act.
The petitioners raises two (2) affirmative defenses before this Court: (1) there was no valid warrantless arrest and search, and (2) there was no compliance with Section 21 of the Dangerous Drugs Act or the chain of custody rule.
In response to the petition, respondent filed the Comment (On the Petition for Review on Certiorari dated June 6, 2018) dated July 3, 2019 (comment), 18 which principally argued that the matters raised in the petition are "basically the same issued raised in [petitioners'] Brief dated 17 April 2017[,]" 19 which has already been completely passed upon by the RTC and the CA, and must thus be dismissed outright. 20
IV. RULING
We find the petition meritorious.
It is correct, as argued by the respondent, 21 that as a general rule the findings of fact by the trial court, especially when affirmed on appeal, are entitled to great weight and respect by this Court. 22 However, this Court, in the exercise of its sound discretion, may nevertheless undertake a judicious examination of the evidence on record when it appears that both the RTC and the CA misapprehended the facts of the case. 23 We find this to be the situation in the case at bar. Both the RTC and the CA overlooked: (1) the significance of a prior invalid search by State authorities of the property of Parungao vis-à-vis the arrest of the petitioners, and, (2) the stark deviation from the chain of custody rule despite the miniscule amount of prohibited drugs involved.
Improper Arrest and Seizure of the
As a rule, both an arrest or a search must be carried out on the strength of a judicially issued warrant predicated upon the existence of probable cause. 24 In the absence of such warrant, the arrest or search becomes unreasonable, and any evidence derived therefrom becomes susceptible to exclusion. 25 The rule is nonetheless subject to certain exceptions.
One of the more notable exceptions to the warrant requirement is that a warrantless search may be done as an incident to a lawful arrest. 26 For the exception to apply, however, it is indispensably required that a valid arrest must precede or at least be substantially contemporaneous to the search. 27 The records of the case leave no doubt that this requirement has not been complied with. In this case, a warrantless search preceded a warrantless arrest, which arrest was followed by another warrantless search.
PO3 Santillan testified on two (2) crucial pieces of fact which would show the impropriety in the seizure of the contraband items subject of the instant case. First, on direct examination, PO3 Santillan testified that he had supposedly seen the on-going pot session of the petitioners from a distance of three (3) meters from the half-opened door of the Parungao's house. 28Second, on cross-examination, PO3 Santillan clarified that before he witnessed such pot session, he had to first open the steel gate of the property and walk a considerable distance inside; thus:
ATTY. FAVIS:
Q: When you were asked to describe the house of Alyas Yoyong, you described it that there is a steel gate, a tree and it is located at the back [of] the school, am I right?
Witness:
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: Could you describe this steel gate or bakal na gate? How does it look like?
A: It is a steel gate which serves as the fence in entering their house.
Q: So, from the road there's a steel gate before you could enter the house of Alyas Yoyong?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: So, for you to see the house of Alyas Yoyong, you have to enter into this steel gate, am I right?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: How far is the steel gate to the door of the house of Alyas Yoyong?
A: From here to the door, ma'am.
COURT:
Stipulate?
FISCAL STA. CRUZ:
Around 10 meters more or less?
COURT:
Stipulated?
ATTY. FAVIS:
Yes, your Honor.
COURT:
All right, 10 meters more or less.
ATTY. FAVIS:
Q: So to be able to see the person inside the house of Alyas Yoyong, you have to enter this gate and to walk at least 10 meters?
WITNESS:
A: Yes, ma'am.29 (Emphasis supplied)
A search involves an examination or intrusion of a person's body, property, or any other area that one could reasonably expect to be considered private. 30 Against this definition, it is beyond doubt that PO3 Santillan conducted a search of Parungao's property when he uninvitedly entered the same and walked a distance of seven meters therein. This search preceded the supposed in flagrante delicto arrest and the subsequent search as an incident of a lawful arrest. Simply stated, it was only after the intrusion into the property of Parungao that PO3 Santillan was able to gain the necessary personal knowledge (i.e., observe an on-going pot session) to justify the arrest and eventual confiscation of the contraband items. 31 Clearly, this anachronism offends the rule that a valid arrest must precede or at least be substantially contemporaneous to the search. 32
But was the entry of PO3 Santillan into the property of Parungao proper? This Court is convinced that it was not. Other than the citizen's report, 33 conspicuously absent from the evidence on record is any testimony which would justify the intrusion of state authorities into the property of Parungao. Significantly, none of the prosecution witnesses testified as to the presence of suspicious circumstances found during their investigation which could justify the intrusion and search. 34
Accordingly, this Court is constrained to declare that the illegal items seized therefrom are inadmissible in evidence for having been recovered from an unreasonable search and seizure. On this score alone, the petitioners' acquittal is in order since the confiscated narcotics and paraphernalia are the very corpus delicti of the crime charged in this case.
Fatal Non-Compliance with the
In Aparente v. People, 35 this Court emphasized the need for law enforcement authorities to exercise the highest degree of vigilance in adhering to the directives of the chain of custody rule in cases where the amount of seized narcotics is miniscule. The reason is simple: "the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an exhibit is small and is one that has physical characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form to substances familiar in people their daily lives." 36
The total volume of seized narcotics in this case amounts to 0.08 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. It can hardly be disputed that such an amount is miniscule. Under this backdrop, the law enforcement authorities must thus act with much circumspection in ensuring adherence to Section 21 of the Dangerous Drugs Act, which provides:
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; x x x
In this case, substantial deviations from the procedure required under chain of custody rule is present. For instance, during the direct examination of PO3 Santillan, he testified that the confiscated illegal drugs and paraphernalia were not marked, inventoried, and photographed at the place of apprehension but at the PCP4 Police Station. By the time that the inventory and photographs were taken, the law enforcement officers had already been to two (2) other places, i.e., the place of apprehension and the Barangay Hall. PO3 Santillan testified as follows:
FISCAL STA. CRUZ:
Q: Officer Santillan, do you remember during the last hearing you testified and identified the pieces of evidence you recovered and the pieces of the object evidence recovered by PO1 Verde?
Witness:
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And do you also remember that you described to us how you kept the pieces of the object evidence?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: So after you have recovered these pieces of object evidence, what happened?
A: After the inventory and marking the pieces of evidence we put it in a brown envelop.
Q: In what place did you conduct the drug inventory?
A: PCP 4, sir.
Q: So before you went to PCP 4, where did you come from?
A: From the house of Parungao where we arrested him, we proceeded to the barangay hall of Malinta, sir.
Q: Why did you go to the barangay hall?
A: For the conduct of drug inventory?
Q: So what happened at the barangay hall?
A: We proceeded to PCP 4.
Q: What happened at the barangay hall?
A: Nothing happened there, the duty Kagawad Balajadia told us to proceed to PCP 4 to conduct the drug inventory there.
Q: As you were on your way to the barangay hall, where were the pieces of evidence you recovered?
A: The pieces of evidence I recovered was with me and the recovered evidence of PO1 Verde was with him, sir.
Q: So after the barangay hall, where did you go?
A: PCP 4, sir.
Q: So what happened at PCP4?
A: We conducted drug inventory there.37 (Emphasis supplied)
Likewise, PO3 Santillan testified on direct examination that the marking, inventory, and photograph of the seized drug articles were done only in the presence of Kagawad Balajadia, a public officer. 38 There is no indication that a representative from the media or from the prosecutorial service were present.
Clearly, therefore, there is no compliance with the stringent requirements of the chain of custody rule. The respondents attempt to justify the deviation by pointing out that the immediate marking, inventory, and photographing of the place is ill advised since the place of apprehension is fraught with danger. 39 The danger, however, seems more imagined than real. As testified by PO3 Santillan, he and the other three (3) officers that accompanied him were armed and they felt no need to call for back-up. 40 They likewise testified that they were able to "bring out safely the accused." 41
As a final note, this Court stresses, as it has done so in the past, that where miniscule amounts of prohibited drugs are involved, law enforcement authorities must strictly comply with the requirements of Section 21 of Dangerous Drugs Act, corollarily, courts must zealously guard against any deviation from the chain of custody rule — only under the most justifiable of circumstances must such deviation be allowed.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated October 27, 2017 and the Resolution dated April 17, 2018 of the Court of Appeals are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioners Alfredo Parungao, Jr. y Lacsa, a.k.a. Yoyong and Sandy Bienvenuto y Boneo, a.k.a. Potpot are ACQUITTED of the crimes charged.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ORDERED to: (a) cause the immediate release of petitioners Alfredo Parungao, Jr. y Lacsa, a.k.a. Yoyong and Sandy Bienvenuto y Boneo, a.k.a. Potpot unless they are being held in custody for any other lawful reason; and (b) inform the Court of the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution. ATICcS
SO ORDERED." (Rosario, J., designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2835 dated July 15, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 11-35.
2.Id. at 36-53; penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon, with Associate Justices Franchito N. Diamante and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles concurring.
3.Id. at 55-56.
4.Id. at 76-82.
5.Id. at 16, 42-43.
6. See rollo, p. 39 (The house of Parungao is located at 148 Tonco St., Malinta, Valenzuela City, behind Malinta Elementary School).
7.Id. at 39-41, 63-64.
8. The records do not show the complete name.
9. The records do not show the complete name.
10.Rollo, pp. 37-39.
11.Id. at 43-44.
12.Id. at 58-74. Respondent likewise filed a Brief for the Appellee dated August 17, 2017, id. at 86-99.
13.Id. at 52.
14.Id. at 49.
15.Id. at 51.
16.Id. at 103-112.
17.Id. at 56.
18.Id. at 126-135.
19.Id. at 130.
20.Id. at 132.
21.Id. at 131.
22.People v. Dejillo, 700 Phil. 643, 660 (2012).
23.Remoticado v. Typical Construction Trading Corp., 830 Phil. 508, 513-514 (2018).
24.Trinidad v. People, G.R. No. 239957, February 18, 2019; People v. Cogaed, 740 Phil. 212, 227 (2014).
25. CONSTITUTION, Article III, Section 3 (2).
26. RULES OF COURT, Rule 126, Section 13.
27.Trinidad v. People, supra; People v. Tudtud, 458 Phil. 752, 773 (2003).
28. TSN dated December 3, 2014, p. 8; Exhibits "1" to "1-c".
29. TSN dated March 27, 2015, pp. 3-4.
30. Black's Law Dictionary (Bryan Garner, et al., eds., 10th ed. 2014).
31.Rollo, pp. 48-49.
32.Trinidad v. People, supra note 24; People v. Tudtud, supra note 27.
33.Rollo, p. 46.
34. See Manibog v. People, G.R. No. 211214, March 20, 2019.
35. 818 Phil. 935, 949 (2017).
36.People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78, 99 (2014), citing Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 588 (2008).
37. TSN dated Feb. 4, 2015, pp. 3-4.
38.Id. at 5-6.
39.Id. at 7-8.
40.Id.
41.Id.
n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. Irregular numerical sequence.