SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 251968. December 1, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EDNA ABREJA y ALAYON, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated01 December 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 251968 (People of the Philippines v. Edna Abreja y Alayon). — Before Us is an appeal 1 filed by accused-appellant Edna Abreja y Alayon (Edna) assailing the September 20, 2019 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02806, affirming the October 24, 2017 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Negros Oriental, Dumaguete City, Branch 30 in Criminal Case No. 2016-23346.
The RTC found Edna guilty of Illegal Sale and Delivery of shabu in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 4 or the "Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002."
The accusatory portion of the Amended Information 5 by which Edna was charged alleges:
That on or about the 9th day of January, 2016, in the City of Dumaguete, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, not being then authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to a poseur-buyer, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing an approximate weight of 2.70 grams of methamphetamine Hydrochloride commonly called "shabu" a dangerous drug.
Contrary to Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. 9165. 6
Edna entered a plea of not guilty to the charge. 7 Trial on the merits ensued.
The prosecution presented the testimonies of Police Officer (PO) 2 Robert John Pama (PO2 Pama), Associate Prosecutor Manolito Tiuseco (AP Tiuseco), Barangay Kagawad Eldy Catipay (Kagawad Catipay), Senior Police Officer (SPO) 1 Carlo Desano (SPO1 Desano), PO1 Joshua Solamillo (PO1 Solamillo), and media practitioner Neil Rio (Rio). 8
The parties agreed to dispense with the testimonies of Police Chief Inspector (PCI) Llena (PCI Llena), PO1 Harris Basañez (PO1 Basañez), and Agent Bob Gregorio (Agent Gregorio), of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). 9
On the other hand, the defense presented the lone testimony 10 of Edna. 11
Version of the Prosecution:
On January 8, 2016, the Provincial Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Group of the Negros Oriental Provincial Police Office (PAIDSOTG-NOPPO) received a confidential information that a certain Edna was engaged in the sale of illegal drugs in Barangay Looc, Dumaguete City. 12
Upon the instruction of PAIDSOTG-NOPPO Chief, Police Senior Inspector Ryan Jay Orapa (Chief Orapa), PO1 Solamillo and the confidential informant conducted the brief casing and surveillance. Upon confirmation of the information against Edna, who was later identified as herein accused-appellant, Chief Orapa decided to conduct a buy-bust operation against her. 13
On January 9, 2016, Chief Orapa briefed the PAIDSOTG-NOPPO operatives of the buy-bust operation against Edna. PO1 Solamillo was designated as the poseur-buyer and was given a P500.00 bill with serial number QK448197 14 which he marked with his signature. He also prepared paper cut-outs and bundled them with the marked money. 15 Meanwhile, the other members of the buy-bust team were designated as back-up security and were tasked to position themselves in strategic locations within the target area. 16
The PDEA Negros Oriental Provincial Office was informed of the planned entrapment. 17 Agent Gregorio procured coordination control number 20002-012016-0119 and issued the corresponding certificate for coordination. 18 The buy-bust team then proceeded to Barangay Looc, Dumaguete City. 19
PO1 Solamillo drove a motorcycle while the other members of the team boarded a separate vehicle. When PO1 Solamillo met the confidential informant, they proceeded to the inner portion of the barangay where Edna was. Upon their approach, Edna instantly asked PO1 Solamillo if he wanted to buy an item. PO1 Solamillo replied in the affirmative but demanded Edna to show him the item first. Edna inquired how much will he buy to which PO1 Solamillo answered P20,000.00 worth of shabu. Edna asked PO1 Solamillo to wait and she proceeded into an alley. When she returned, Edna handed PO1 Solamillo a heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. PO1 Solamillo examined its contents and. then gave the boodle money to Edna. Upon receipt of payment by Edna, PO1 Solamillo immediately held and arrested her. In Visayan dialect, PO1 Solamillo informed her of the nature of the crime and apprised her of her constitutional rights. 20
The other members of the buy-bust team arrived. Edna was bodily searched. PO1 Salamillo placed an adhesive tape on the plastic sachet he bought from Edna and marked it as EAA-BB-01-09-2016 with his signature. The initials "EAA" referred to the complete name of Edna and "BB" referred to the buy-bust operation while the numbers referred to the elate of the incident. 21
The buy-bust team decided to conduct the inventory of the confiscated items at the Dumaguete City Police Station. 22 The entrapment team brought Edna and the seized items to the police station. Thereat, PO1 Solamillo conducted an inventory of all the items they seized in the presence of Edna, AP Tiuseco, Kagawad Catipay and media practitioner Rio. 23
PO1 Solamillo prepared an inventory of property seized (inventory sheet) 24 which he signed as seizing officer. AP Tiuseco, Kagawad Catipay, media representative Rio, as well as SPO1 Desano, as team leader, and PO2 Basañez, as photographer, 25 likewise signed the inventory sheet and were all furnished copies thereof. PO1 Solamillo then placed the marked heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet inside a brown envelope which he sealed and signed. Thereafter, he prepared a request for crime laboratory examination which was approved and signed by SPO1 Desano. 26
PO1 Solamillo brought the sealed brown envelope with his signature, together with the request, to the crime laboratory for examination. When PO2 Pama received the envelope, he checked whether the heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet inside corresponded to that in the inventory sheet. Confirming that it tallied, PO2 Pama resealed the envelope and placed it inside his locker which only he has the key. The next day, he turned over the envelope to PCI Llena, the Acting Chief of the Crime Laboratory. 27
Upon receipt of the tape sealed envelope and the request, PCI Llena marked the enveloped with "A" D-013-16 JSL and the specimen with "A-1" D-013-16 JSL. PCI Llena weighed the specimen and conducted a qualitative examination, the results of which yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. PCI Llena reduced her findings in Chemistry Report No. D-013-16 28 dated January 10, 2016 29 and kept the specimens in the evidence vault of which she had exclusive access until she turned them over to the trial court. 30
Version of the Defense:
Edna recalled that on January 9, 2016, at around 4:00 p.m., she and her children were inside their house when somebody knocked on their door. When her son opened the door, there were two individuals outside looking for her. Edna invited them in but they refused since they needed to discuss something with her without her children in attendance. They then asked Edna if she wanted her husband, who was then imprisoned for drug charges, to be set free. To do so, she needed to tell them something so that "palit-ulo" can take place. 31 Edna agreed to their offer and went along with them. 32 The two individuals, who turned out to be police officers, brought Edna to Zone 4, Barangay Looc. They inquired whether Edna knew who ordered a kilogram of shabu to be delivered in Ang Barko Hotel. When Edna replied in the negative, she was boarded in a vehicle and brought to Dumaguete City Police Station where she was repeatedly asked about the transaction. 33
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
In a Decision 34 dated October 24, 2017, the RTC found Edna guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, viz.:
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the Court hereby finds the accused Edna Abreja y Alayon GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal sale and delivery of 2.70 grams of shabu in violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer a penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).
The one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings "EAA-BB-01-09-2016" with signature containing an approximate weight of 2.70 grams of shabu is hereby confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government and to be disposed of in accordance with law.
In the service of sentence, the accused Edna Abreja y Alayon shall be credited with the full time during which she has undergone preventive imprisonment, provided she agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners.
SO ORDERED. 35
The trial court found: 1) that the prosecution was able to prove all elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs; 2) that the identity of the shabu was established; 3) that the chain of custody of the seized items was unbroken and their integrity and evidentiary value were established; and 4) that the warrantless arrest of Edna was valid. The RTC rejected the defense of denial interposed by Edna for being uncorroborated and insufficient vis-à-vis the positive declarations of the police officers and the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties. 36
Feeling aggrieved, Edna elevated the case to the CA. 37
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
The appellate court sustained and affirmed the findings of the RTC. The dispositive portion of the September 20, 2019 Decision 38 of the CA reads:
WHEREFORE, the Judgment dated October 24, 2017 rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 30, Dumaguete City in Criminal Case No. 2016-23346, convicting accused-appellant Edna Abreja y Alayon of Violation of Section 5 of Article II of R.A. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 is AFFIRMED.
With costs against the accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED. 39
The CA disregarded Edna's assertion that her arrest was illegal. The appellate court held that, in view of Edna's arraignment, 40 and active participation during trial without moving to quash the Information on the ground of illegal arrest, she already waived her right to question her arrest. In any event, her warrantless arrest was valid because it was a result of a legitimate entrapment operation. 41
The appellate court likewise found no reason to disagree with the findings of the RTC which had the unique opportunity to assess the witnesses' demeanor, conduct and attitude. The CA thus likewise disregarded Edna's denial and allegation of frame-up. The CA found the testimony of PO1 Solamillo to have satisfactorily proved the illegal sale and fully established an unbroken chain of custody. 42
Undeterred, Edna appealed her case before Us. 43 When required by this Court to file a supplemental brief, 44 only the Office of the Solicitor General, representing the People of the Philippines, manifested that they shall adopt their appellee's brief filed before the appellate court. 45
Issues
I.
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE ILLEGALITY OF HER ARREST AND THE INADMISSIBILITY OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST HER.
II.
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT BASED ON THE INCONSISTENT AND INCREDIBLE TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESS, PO1 JOSEPH SOLAMILLO.
III.
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO COMPLY WITH THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE AND THE MANDATORY PROCEDURE LAID OUT IN SEC. 21 (PAR. 1), ART. II OF R.A. NO. 9165. 46
Our Ruling
The appeal is granted.
An appeal in a criminal case throws the entire case wide open for review. Thus, it becomes the duty of the appellate court to correct any error that may be found in the appealed judgment, whether assigned or not. 47
In flagrante delicto arrest is a
Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court enumerates the instances when an arrest without a warrant is lawful, viz.:
RULE 113
SECTION 5. Arrest Without Warrant; When Lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. (Emphasis ours)
The first kind of warrantless arrest is known as an inflagrantedelicto arrest. In People v. Cogaed, 48 the Court laid the test for its validity, thus:
[F]or a warrantless arrest of in flagrante delicto to be affected, ''two elements must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he [or she] has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer."49 (Emphasis ours)
An arrest resulting from a legitimate buy-bust operation is considered as a form of an in flagrante arrest sanctioned by Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, which police authorities may rightfully resort to in apprehending violators of RA 9165. 50 In People v. Andaya, 51 this Court explained the nature of a buy-bust operation and its legitimacy, viz.:
We reiterate that a buy-bust operation is a valid and legitimate form of entrapment of the drug pusher. In such operation, the poseur buyer transacts with the suspect by purchasing a quantity of the dangerous drug and paying the price agreed upon, and in turn the drug pusher turns over or delivers the dangerous drug subject of their agreement in exchange for the price or other consideration. Once the transaction is consummated, the drug pusher is arrested, and can be held to account under the criminal law. The justification that underlies the legitimacy of the buy-bust operation is that the suspect is arrested in flagrante delicto, that is, the suspect has just committed, or is in the act of committing, or is attempting to commit the offense in the presence of the arresting police officer or private person. The arresting police officer or private person is favored in such instance with the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. 52 (Emphasis ours; citations omitted)
Here, it was established that the police operatives conducted a legitimate buy-bust operation complete with proper documentation 53 and coordination 54 with the PDEA. The poseur-buyer described in detail the events leading to and during the conduct thereof including the consummation of the sale of illegal drugs perpetrated by Edna. Thus, Edna's subsequent warrantless arrest is not only factually justified but also judicially sanctioned.
Moreover, We concur with the appellate court that Edna's attempt to question the lawfulness of her arrest is already too late in the day as she has not questioned the same before her arraignment and even willingly participated in the trial. Settled is the rule that the right to question the validity of an arrest may be waived if the accused, assisted by counsel, fails to object to its validity before arraignment. In the case at bar, Edna never raised an objection when she was arraigned. 55
All elements of sale of illegal
For a prosecution of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs to prosper, all the elements must be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 56
These two elements were duly established by the prosecution. The identities of the buyer and seller, i.e., Edna and PO1 Solamillo were proven beyond reasonable doubt. The object of the sale was shabu for a consideration of P20,000.00. Edna delivered the sachet of shabu to PO1 Solamillo who, in turn, gave the amount of P20,000.00 to Edna.
The chain of custody rule ensurescorpus delicti in drug cases.
The illicit drugs seized from the accused comprise the very corpus delicti of the charge. 57 It is thus obligatory upon the prosecution to ensure that the links in the movements of the seized drugs, from confiscation to their presentation in court, are established, negating reasonable doubt on their identity and integrity. 58
The preservation of the chain of custody of the drugs seized ensures that unnecessary doubts on the identity and evidentiary value of the evidence are removed. 59 In ascertaining the identity of the illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia presented in court as the ones actually seized from the accused, the prosecution must show that: (1) the prescribed procedure under Section 21 (1), Article II of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, 60 has been complied with or falls within the saving clause provided in Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165; 61 and (2) there was an unbroken link in the chain of custody with respect to the confiscated items. 62
Section 21 (1) of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, lays down the procedure to be followed in the seizure and ensuing custody of the seized dangerous drugs, viz.:
SEC. 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 dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items 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, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media 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, finally, 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. [Emphasis and underscoring ours]
Section 1 (b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, which implements RA 9165, defines the term "chain of custody" as follows:
"Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition. (Emphasis and underscoring ours)
People v. Siaton63 exhaustively discussed the particular links in the chain of custody that the prosecution must positively establish, to wit:
Jurisprudence has been instructive in illustrating the links in the chain that need to be established, to wit:
First, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer;
Second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer;
Third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and
Fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court. 64 (Emphasis ours; citations omitted)
The first stage in the chain of custody is the marking of the dangerous drugs. The marking operates to set apart as evidence the dangerous drugs or related items from other materials from the moment they are confiscated until they are disposed of at the close of the criminal proceedings, thereby preventing switching, planting or contamination of evidence. 65 This is followed by a conduct of a physical inventory of the seized items and taking of photographs 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, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media, who shall be required to sign copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. 66
A careful review of the records of the case reveals that the police operatives committed lapses in the first link of the chain that fatally flawed the succeeding chains in the custody of the illegal drugs. The testimonies of the insulating witnesses revealed that they did not witness the actual inventory which was the primordial reason of their presence, i.e., to prevent tampering, switching or planting of evidence.
The pertinent portion of the testimony of AP Tiuseco reveals, thus:
On direct examination
Q. On January 9, 2016, you were connected with the City Prosecution Office of Dumaguete City?
A. Yes.
xxx xxx xxx
Q. Did you go to the Dumaguete City Police Station?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What did you do there?
A. Once there, I examined certain items and inventory and upon ascertaining that the markings in those items were the same as those written in the inventory [sheet] that was before me, I affixed my signature.
Q. What document did you sign, sir?
A. It's an Inventory/Receipt of Property Seized.
xxx xxx xxx
Q. Were you given a copy of the document, sir?
A. No.
ON CROSS EXAMINATION BY ATTY. JASON BANDAL:
xxx xxx xxx
Q. Now Mr. Witness, you went to Dumaguete City Police Station only to witness the Inventory of the Property Seized?
A. Yes.
xxx xxx xxx
Q. What you did at the police station was just to compare the items and after comparing the same, you put your signature in the Inventory of Property Seized?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now sir, when you arrived at the police station, there were already items that were prepared and placed on top of the table?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the accused was already definitely arrested at that time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now Mr. Witness, the entries in the inventory were already filled up when arrived?
A. Yes.
Q. So all you have to do, Mr. Witness, was just compare the items and you put your signature above the space provided for the DOJ representative?
A. Yes, sir.67 (Emphasis and underscoring Ours)
Similarly, the testimonies of the other insulating witnesses, Kagawad Catipay 68 and media representative Rio, 69 also showed that they have not seen the actual physical inventory and merely counter-checked those listed on the list vis-à-vis the alleged seized items that were already on the table. They merely signed the prepared inventory sheet without witnessing the vital process of physical inventory. 70
Moreover, AP Tiuseco testified that not all insulating witnesses received a copy of the inventory sheet 71 in contravention of the rules. Moreover, Edna's signature was not found in the in the inventory sheet either. 72 Given all these, We hold that the first link was not sufficiently established; consequently, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti of the crime charged were not preserved.
It is true that noncompliance with the requirements shall not render void and invalid such seizure of and custody over said items provided that: (1) such noncompliance was due to justifiable grounds, and (2) the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. 73 However, the prosecution did not show that there were justifiable grounds for deviating from the procedure. The omission became more glaring considering that the prosecution presented that the buy-bust operation entailed careful planning and coordination before it was implemented.
At this point, We reiterate our ruling in Malillin v. People74 that highlighted the danger sought to be prevented by the strict enforcement of preserving the chain of custody, thus:
A unique characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are not readily identifiable as in fact they are subject to scientific analysis to determine their composition and nature. The Court cannot reluctantly close its eyes to the likelihood, or at least the possibility, that at any of the links in the chain of over the same there could have been tampering, alteration or substitution of substances from other cases by accident or otherwise — in which similar evidence was seized or in which similar evidence was submitted for laboratory testing. Hence, in authenticating the same, a standard more stringent than that applied to cases involving objects which are readily identifiable must be applied, a more exacting standard that entails chain of custody of the item with sufficient completeness if only to render it improbable that the original item has either been exchanged with another or been contaminated or tampered with. 75 (Emphasis and underscoring Ours)
Guided by the foregoing, the lapses committed by the police operatives in the chain of custody were fatal. Acquittal must follow in accordance with the constitutional mandate that the guilt of the accused must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The September 20, 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02806 which affirmed the guilt beyond reasonable doubt of accused-appellant Edna Abreja y Alayon for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant is ACQUITTED based on reasonable doubt, and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless she is being lawfully held for another cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City. The Director General is DIRECTED to report to this Court the action he/she has taken within five days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED."(Gaerlan and Dimaampao, JJ., on official leave.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 17-21.
2.Id. at 5-16. Penned by Associate Justice Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos (now a retired Member of this Court) and Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga.
3. Records, pp. 114-124. Penned by Judge Rafael Crescencio C. Tan, Jr.
4. 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 on June 7, 2002.
5. Records, p. 61.
6.Id. The amended information was caused to correct the spelling of the names of the complainant and accused.
7.Id. at 64-66.
8.Id. at 114.
9. Records, pp. 89-90; 107-108.
10. TSN, September 5, 2017, pp. 11-19.
11. Records, p. 118.
12. TSN, September 5, 2017, p. 16.
13.Id. at 16-17.
14. Records, p. 44.
15. TSN, September 5, 2017, p. 20.
16.Id. at 17.
17. Records, pp. 107-108.
18.Id. 34.
19.Id. at 107-108.
20. TSN, September 5, 2017, p. 21.
21.Id. at 16-17.
22. Records, p. 11.
23.Id.
24.Id. at 19.
25.Id. at 42-47.
26. TSN, September 5, 2017, pp. 22-25 and September 6, 2017, pp. 3-8.
27. TSN, September 5, 2017, p. 25; September 4, 2017, pp. 4-9.
28. Records, p. 22.
29. TSN, September 4, 2017, pp. 6-8 and 10-11.
30.Id. at 10-11.
31. CA rollo, p. 39.
32. Records, p. 118.
33.Id.
34.Id. at 114-124.
35.Id. at 123.
36.Id. at 118-123.
37.Id. at 131-133.
38.Rollo, pp. 5-16.
39.Id. at 15.
40.Id. at 64-66.
41.Rollo, p. 12.
42.Id. at 11-14.
43.Id. at 17-18.
44.Id. at 24.
45.Id. at 31-32.
46. CA rollo, p. 32; lifted from the appellant's brief filed before the CA.
47. See Trinidad v. People, G.R. No. 239957, February 18, 2019, citing People v. Comboy, 782 Phil. 187, 196 (2016), citing Manansala v. People, 775 Phil. 514, 520 (2015).
48. 740 Phil. 212, 238 (2014).
49.Id., citing People v. Chua, 444 Phil. 757 (2003).
50.People v. Roa, 634 Phil. 437, 447 (2010).
51.People v. Andaya, 745 Phil. 237-251 (2014).
52.Id. at 246, citing People v. Bartolome, 703 Phil. 148, 152 (2013).
53. Records, pp. 26-27; PDEA Blotter.
54.Id. at 34; Certificate of Coordination.
55.Rollo, pp. 64-66.
56.People v. Magalong y Maramba, G.R. No. 231838, March 4, 2019, citing People v. Sic-Open, 795 Phil. 859, 869-870 (2016); People v. Eda, 793 Phil. 885, 896 (2016); People v. Amaro, 786 Phil. 139, 146-147 (2016); and People v. Ros, 758 Phil. 142, 159 (2015).
57.Tolentino v. People, G.R. No. 227217, February 12, 2020.
58.Id.
59.People v. Yagao, G.R. No. 216725, February 18, 2019.
60. 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 on July 15, 2014.
61.Tolentino v. People, supra.
62.Id.
63. 789 Phil. 87-108 (2016.)
64.Id. at 98-99.
65.Id. at 100, citing People v. Gonzales, 708 Phil. 121, 130-131 (2013).
66.Edangalino v. People, G.R. No. 235110, January 8, 2020.
67. TSN, September 5, 2017, pp. 3-6.
68.Id. at 9-10.
69. TSN, September 6, 2017, pp. 4-5.
70.People v. Cariño, G.R. No. 233336, January 14, 2019.
71. TSN, September 5, 2017, p. 4.
72. Records, p. 19.
73.People v. Malabanan, G.R. No. 241950, April 10, 2019.
74. 576 Phil. 576 (2008).
75.Id. at 588-589.