FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 253289. August 31, 2022.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.RANELIO AGUILAR y ESPINA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 31, 2022, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 253289 (People of the Philippines v. Ranelio Aguilar y Espina). — Accused-appellant Ranelio Aguilar y Espina assails the March 13, 2020 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12077, which affirmed the March 13, 2018 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Batangas City, Branch 8 in Criminal Case No. 19019, finding accused-appellant guilty of Illegal Possession of a Dangerous Drug, known as shabu, under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, 3 otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Act of 2002."
Factual Antecedents
Accused-appellant was charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 under the following Information: 4
That on or about July 30, 2014 around 5:50 in the morning at Sitio Hilltop, Brgy. Kumintang Ibaba, Batangas City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there knowingly, wilfully and criminally possess or have under his custody and control one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing more or less of [sic] 11.28 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, more commonly known as "shabu," a dangerous drug, which is a clear violation of the above-cited law.
That said accused has been previously CONVICTED by final judgment on August 21, 2000 under Criminal Case No. 10674 for violation of Section 16 of R.A. 6425 at Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, Batangas City.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges. Thereafter, pre-trial was conducted and subsequently trial ensued. 6
The prosecution presented the testimonies of the arresting officer, Police Officer 2 Ponciano V. Asilo (PO2 Asilo), and investigator-on-case Police Officer 1 Ruther Carandang (PO1 Carandang). 7 On the other hand, the defense presented accused-appellant as its sole witness. CAIHTE
Version of the Prosecution
On July 30, 2014, at about 5:00 a.m., PO2 Asilo was on duty at the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs, Special Operation Task Group (SAID-SOTG) in Batangas City Police Station when they received a report from a confidential informant that "Ranny" was acting suspiciously in Sitio Hilltop, Barangay Kumintang Ibaba, Batangas City. PO2 Asilo knew Ranny to be herein accused-appellant who had been previously convicted of a crime involving illegal drugs. 8 Thus, a team, led by Police Officer 3 Alexander Olea (PO3 Olea) was immediately formed to conduct a surveillance operation on accused-appellant. Before their departure, Police Officer 2 Ponciano Ebora recorded the operation in the police blotter. Thereafter, PO3 Olea, together with PO2 Asilo and Police Officer 3 Jonas Guarda (PO3 Guarda) were dispatched to conduct a surveillance operation against accused-appellant. 9
Upon arrival at the target area, the team spotted accused-appellant who was standing by the side of the road and who appeared to be waiting for someone. PO3 Olea parked their vehicle at about 30 to 40 meters away from accused-appellant to monitor the latter's movement. A few minutes thereafter, a person on board a motorcycle stopped by in front of accused-appellant and handed him a "shiny" plastic sachet. Acting on their suspicion that accused-appellant was doing something illegal, PO2 Asilo and his co-police officers immediately approached them but the man on board the motorcycle sped off and left accused-appellant behind. PO2 Asilo immediately confronted accused-appellant about the plastic sachet he was holding which the latter quickly handed to PO2 Asilo and uttered, "[w]alang wala na po eh, pampamilya lang po."10
PO2 Asilo then arrested accused-appellant. At the place of arrest, PO2 Asilo marked the plastic sachet with "PVA 07-30-14" while PO3 Olea took photographs. 11 PO2 Asilo then placed the seized plastic sachet in the right pocket of his pants and brought accused-appellant to the barangay hall of Barangay Kumintang Ibaba where an inventory of the seized item was conducted in the presence of accused-appellant, Barangay Kagawad Edmalyn Gabriel, and National Prosecution Service (NPS) representative Leonides Cueto. 12 Photographs of the inventory were also taken. Thereafter, the seized item was turned over to the investigator-on-case, PO1 Carandang. 13
PO1 Carandang prepared the corresponding request for laboratory examination and delivered it, together with the specimen marked with "PVA 07-30-14," to the Batangas Province Crime Laboratory Office (BPCLO), which were received by forensic chemist Police Senior Inspector Herminia C. Llacuna (PSI Llacuna). The qualitative examination conducted by PSI Llacuna on the specimen yielded a positive result for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride. PSI Llacuna reduced her findings in Chemistry Report No. BD-473-2014. 14
After the examination, PSI Llacuna turned over the specimen and Chemistry Report No. BD-473-2014 to the evidence custodian of BPCLO, Senior Police Officer 4 Jesus Agustin, Jr. (SPO4 Agustin, Jr.) for safekeeping. On September 2, 2014, the same specimen and accompanying documents were released by SPO4 Agustin, Jr. to Police Officer 2 Isidro Manalo (PO2 Manalo), the assistant evidence custodian of BPCLO. PO2 Manalo delivered the specimen, together with the pertinent documents, to the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) of Batangas City, thru evidence custodian Rodel Espina (Espina), per its request. 15
The prosecution and the defense stipulated on the testimonies of PSI Llacuna, SPO4 Agustin, Jr., PO2 Manalo, and Espina. 16
Version of the Defense
Accused-appellant vehemently denied the accusation against him. He averred that at about 4:00 a.m. of July 30, 2014, he was on his way home on board a tricycle after buying food items from the market. Along the way, four armed individuals blocked the road. When the driver stopped the tricycle, the individuals told accused-appellant to alight therefrom and for the driver to leave. The armed personalities were later identified by accused-appellant to be police officers Guarda, Olea, Carandang and a certain Ilustre. They arrested accused-appellant and handcuffed him without stating the reason for the arrest. Accused-appellant was brought to the police station where he was forced to admit in possession of an illegal drug or shabu. Accused-appellant firmly denied the accusation against him but the law enforcers did not believe him; instead, PO3 Olea punched his abdomen. The police officers then left him in the police station. 17
After a while, the police officers returned and took accused-appellant to a place near the offices of the Bureau of Internal Revenue and National Bureau of Investigation at Hilltop. While thereat, PO2 Asilo took out a plastic sachet from his pocket and marked the same while police officer Ilustre took photographs thereof. Thereafter, accused-appellant was brought to the barangay hall where the police officers asked him to sign a document which he was not able to read. 18
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
In its March 13, 2018 Decision, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty of Illegal Possession of shabu. The trial court disposed the case in this wise:
On the basis of the evidence presented by the Prosecution[,] it has been clearly established by the Prosecution that the accused was in possession of 11.28 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride on the morning of July 30, 2014 at Hilltop, Kumintang Ibaba, Batangas City. For that matter[,] Republic Act No. 9165, Section 11, paragraph 2nd (1) is quoted hereunder:
1.) Life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (P400,000.00) to Five Hundred Thousand Pesos, if the quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu" is ten (10) grams or more but less than fifty (50) grams
Wherefore Ranelio Aguilar y Espina also known as "Ranny" is guilty beyond reasonable doubt to have transgressed the provisions of Republic Act No. 9165, Section 11, Article II when he possessed the 11.28 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride. Consequently, the accused Ranelio Aguilar y Espina is hereby sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay the fine of five hundred thousand (P500,000.00) pesos.
xxx xxx xxx
SO ORDERED. 19
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Aggrieved with the trial court's ruling, accused-appellant filed an appeal with the CA. However, in its March 13, 2020 Decision, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's findings, the fallo of which reads:
WHEREFORE, we DENY the appeal. The Decision dated 13 March 2018 is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.20
Issue
The pivotal issue in the instant case is whether accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the offense charged.
Our Ruling
The appeal lacks merit.
Accused-appellant was validly
Accused-appellant invokes illegal arrest and search. He avers that his warrantless arrest was illegal since he was not then committing any crime. The sachet allegedly seized from him is not admissible in evidence against him being the fruit of a poisonous tree. 21
His averment fails to persuade Us.
The Constitution states that failure to secure a judicial warrant prior to the actual search and consequent seizure would render it unreasonable and any evidence obtained therefrom shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. 22 This constitutional prohibition, however, admits of the following exceptions: (i) warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest; (ii) seizure of evidence in "plain view"; (iii) search of a moving vehicle; (iv) consented warrantless search; (v) customs search; (vi) stop and frisk; and (vii) exigent and emergency circumstances. 23
Seizure of evidence in "plain view" means that objects falling in the plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence. The plain view doctrine applies when the following requisites concur: (1) law enforcers in search of evidence have a prior justification for an intrusion or are in a position from which they can view a particular area; (2) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and (3) it is immediately apparent to the officers that the item they observed may be evidence of a crime, a contraband, or is otherwise subject to seizure. 24
In this case, We agree with the findings of the RTC and the appellate court that there is sufficient evidence to prove that accused-appellant was apprehended through a valid warrantless arrest, and the warrantless search was effected through a search of evidence in "plain view." Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court provides in part: DETACa
Sec. 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; (Emphasis supplied)
To recall, the police officers were already in receipt of information about the illegal activities of accused appellant, who has a prior conviction for a drug-related case. In the course of their surveillance operation, they spotted accused-appellant standing by the side of the street and who appeared to be waiting for someone. The law enforcers parked their vehicle at a distance from where they could observe the latter's movement. A few minutes thereafter, a motorist stopped by in front of accused-appellant and handed a "shiny" plastic sachet to the latter. Acting on their suspicion that accused-appellant was doing something illegal, PO2 Asilo and his team immediately approached them but the man on board the motorcycle sped off and left accused-appellant behind. This further bolstered the law enforcers' belief that accused-appellant was engaged in an illegal activity. Thus, PO2 Asilo immediately confronted accused-appellant about the plastic sachet that he was holding and the latter quickly handed the plastic sachet to PO2 Asilo. 25 After a laboratory examination, the white crystalline substance inside the sachet was found positive for shabu. 26
Therefore, the warrantless arrest of accused-appellant was pursuant to Section 5 (a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, 27 or the arrest of a suspect in flagrante delicto. Accused-appellant was clearly arrested in flagrante delicto as he was then committing a crime of Possession of Illegal Drugs without having authority to do so, a violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, in the presence of the police officers. 28 Consequently, the seizure of the illegal drug was valid since it was a search of evidence in plain view, hence it needed no warrant for its validity. Therefore, the confiscated item is admissible in evidence since it was procured through a legal arrest and search. 29
Accused-appellant's argument that the lack of a prior coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) casts serious doubt on the veracity of the operation 30 is unmeritorious. This Court has previously held that prior coordination with the PDEA is not an indispensable requirement before police authorities may carry out their operation in drug-related cases. 31 Moreover, in the instant case, the police officers were conducting a surveillance operation which explains why they were not yet able to coordinate with the PDEA. However, during their surveillance, they witnessed a crime actually being committed.
The prosecution sufficiently
The elements of the crime of Illegal Possession of shabu are as follows: (1) the possession by the accused of an identified prohibited drug; (2) such possession was not legally authorized; and, (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed it. 32 Settled is the rule that mere possession of a prohibited drug, without legal authority, is punishable under RA 9165, as amended. 33
In the present case, We find that the prosecution's evidence satisfied the foregoing elements. The arresting officer, PO2 Asilo, positively identified accused-appellant as the person caught in possession of the shabu presented in court. In addition, PO2 Asilo was familiar with the physical features of accused-appellant in view of the latter's previous conviction for a crime involving illegal drugs. 34 The illegal drug was validly confiscated after accused-appellant was arrested in flagrante delicto after receiving a plastic sachet containing suspected illegal drug from an unknown motorist. 35 The relevant portions of PO2 Asilo's testimony reads:
Prosecutor Gajete
(Q): So, after you have registered your departure to the desk officer, what happened?
Witness (A):
We boarded in a tinted car and we proceeded to Brgy. Hilltop, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: What happened when you were there?
A: We were able to see alias Ranny x x x standing at the street, sir.
Q: What was he doing when you saw him?
A: He was there standing, sir.
Q: So, when you saw him standing at the place which was relayed to you where he was standing, what happened?
A: We tried to look for a place where we can observe him, sir. 36
xxx xxx xxx
Q: You said that you looked for a place where you could clearly observe this Ranny, were you able to find one?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: So what happened after you have found the place where you could observe this Ranny?
A: After a few minutes, there was a motorcycle which arrived, sir.
Q: And how many were boarding the motorcycle?
A: Only one, sir.
Q: What was the person boarding the motorcycle doing?
A: We saw the motorcycle stopped in front of Ranny and the person boarding the motorcycle handed something to Ranny, sir.
Q: How far were you from the place where this Ranny was standing being approached by the man boarding the motorcycle and the position where you have been observing him?
A: 30 to 40 meters, sir. 37
xxx xxx xxx
Q: So, when you saw this motorcycle riding fellow handed something to Ranny, which you have observed as you said, what did you see if you saw that this man in the motorcycle handed to Ranny?
xxx xxx xxx
A: I was able to see the plastic, sir.
Q: Can you describe the size of this plastic that you are referring to that you saw?
A: About two inches (2"), sir.
Q: At the distance of 30 meters, you saw that?
A: Yes, sir, because it was shiny (makintab), sir.
Q: You saw the plastic, can you remember the color of the plastic?
A: Transparent, sir. 38
Q: So, upon seeing that this motorcycle riding man holding a transparent plastic sachet to Ranny, what was your impression then?
A: I had a suspicion, sir.
Q: What did you suspect?
A: That they were doing something which is illegal, sir.
Q: What do you think is that illegal thing that they were doing?
A: About drugs, sir.
Q: Having that thought in your mind with your suspicion, what did you do next?
A: We immediately proceeded to the place where they were, sir.
Q: You said, "we," who was with you?
A: PO3 Olea and PO3 Guarda, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Were you able to reach the place where they were?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What was their reaction upon seeing you arriving at the place where they were? 39
A: When we were approaching them, the man in the motorcycle immediately speed off, sir.
Q: What about Ranny, what did he do?
A: Only Ranny was left, sir.
Q: What happened when you approached this certain Ranny?
A: I was able to see him holding a plastic sachet and he handed it to me, sir.
Q: Now, what did you do when he handed to you the sachet of shabu?
A: While he was handing it to me, he told me, "walang-wala na po eh, pampamilya lang po," sir. 40
In support thereto, Chemistry Report No. BD-473-2014 confirmed that a qualitative examination conducted on the specimen yielded a positive result for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. 41
We find the statement of PO2 Asilo to be credible. The narration of the incident by the police officers must be given weight since they are generally accorded the presumption of having regularly performed their duties in the absence of convincing proof to the contrary. 42 PO2 Asilo's testimony, along with the testimony of PO1 Carandang, the evidence on record, and the facts stipulated upon during trial, were consistent with each other. Furthermore, accused-appellant failed to adduce evidence showing that he had legal authority to possess the confiscated drug. Thus, We find no reason to disturb the findings of the RTC as affirmed by the CA. aDSIHc
The police officers substantially
Equally untenable is accused-appellant's final argument that the police officers failed to observe the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, 43 as amended by RA 10640, 44 which pertinently 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. x x x 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, x x x 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 persons 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;
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, x x x the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results x x x shall be issued immediately upon the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of dangerous drugs, x x x does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued immediately upon completion of the said examination and certification;
Thus, to successfully indict accused-appellant for the offense charged, it is primordial that the corpus delicti or the confiscated illegal drugs had been proved beyond reasonable doubt. This means that aside from proving the elements of the crime, the prosecution must likewise establish that the same illegal drugs possessed by the accused-appellant must be the same ones offered in court. As such, the apprehending officers must prove compliance with the required unbroken chain of custody under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 to ensure that no unnecessary doubt is created on the identity of the seized illegal drugs. 45
Chain of custody refers to the recorded authorized movements and custody of confiscated dangerous drugs, or controlled substances. It involves testimony on every link in the chain — from the confiscation of the illegal drugs to its receipt in the forensic laboratory up to its presentation in court. 46 It is necessary that every person who touched the seized item describes how and from whom he or she received it; where and what happened to it while in the witness' possession; its condition when received and at the time it was delivered to the next link in the chain. 47
The chain of custody consists of the following four links: 1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug confiscated from the accused by the apprehending officer; 2) the turnover of the seized drug by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; 3) the turnover by the investigating officer of said item to the forensic chemist for examination; and, 4) the turnover and submission thereof from the forensic chemist to the court. 48
In the instant case, We find that the police officers substantially complied with the foregoing procedure. The prosecution proved the chain of custody of the seized shabu as follows:
(i) The first link. PO2 Asilo seized the illegal drug from accused-appellant and marked the same with "PVA 07-30-14" in the presence of accused-appellant in the place of arrest. The marking was photographed by PO3 Olea likewise at the place of arrest. PO2 Asilo secured the seized item in the right front pocket of his pants which contained nothing except the confiscated drug from accused-appellant. PO2 Asilo had sole custody of the same when they travelled from the place of arrest to the barangay hall for the inventory. 49
(ii) The second link. The inventory was conducted in the presence of accused-appellant, PO2 Asilo, PO1 Carandang, an elected public official, and a representative from the NPS. 50 Photographs of the inventory were likewise taken in the presence of accused-appellant and the foregoing witnesses. After the conduct of the inventory, PO2 Asilo turned over the seized plastic sachet marked with "PVA 07-30-14" to PO1 Carandang. Afterwards, they all went back to the Batangas City Police Station. Upon arrival, PO1 Carandang prepared the Request for Laboratory Examination 51 of the seized item and he had the document signed by the duty officer of the police station. PO1 Carandang also signed on the lower left portion of the same request. 52
(iii) The third link. PO1 Carandang delivered the seized specimen to the BPCLO at 10:30 a.m. of July 30, 2014, the same day that accused-appellant was apprehended and the drug he possessed was confiscated. PO1 Carandang's delivery of the seized item marked with "PVA 07-30-14" was evidenced by his signature on the Chain of Custody Form, 53 while the Request for Laboratory Examination was both signed by PO1 Carandang and forensic chemist PSI Llacuna which signified the latter's receipt of the pertinent documents and the specimen delivered by PO1 Carandang. 54
(iv) The fourth link. The parties stipulated 55 on the testimonies of forensic chemist PSI Llacuna, BPCLO evidence custodian SPO4 Agustin, Jr., BPCLO assistant evidence custodian PO2 Manalo, and NPS-OCP evidence custodian Espina. PSI Llacuna confirmed through qualitative examination that the contents of the seized plastic sachet tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu as evidenced by Chemistry Report No. BD-473-2014. 56 After her examination of the specimen, PSI Llacuna turned it over together with the pertinent documents to SPO4 Agustin, Jr., for safekeeping. PSI Llacuna signed on the Chain of Custody 57 form to record the turnover to and receipt by SPO4 Agustin, Jr. On September 2, 2014, per request 58 of the OCP of Batangas City, SPO4 Agustin, Jr. released the specimen contained in a plastic pouch marked with "BD-473-2014 HCL" and pertinent documents to his assistant, PO2 Manalo. The latter delivered the pieces of evidence to the OCP of Batangas City, thru its evidence custodian Espina. The transmittal was recorded in the Receipt of Evidence 59 dated September 2, 2014 and duly signed by Espina. In the Joint Manifestation and Motion, 60 Espina affirmed the delivery of the pertinent documents and the plastic pouch with markings "BD-473-2014 HCL" by BPCLO assistant evidence custodian PO2 Manalo. 61
All told, We find that the prosecution was able to establish an unbroken chain of custody. The penalty and fine imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court were likewise proper. ETHIDa
ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is DISMISSED. The March 13, 2020 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12077 is hereby AFFIRMED.
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. CA rollo, pp. 99-125. Penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Pedro B. Corales and Tita Marilyn B. Payoyo-Villordon.
2. Id. at 69-77. Penned by Presiding Judge Ernesto L. Marajas.
3. 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: June 7, 2002.
4. Records, p. 1.
5. Id.
6. CA rollo, p. 100.
7. Id.
8. Records, Decision dated August 21, 2000, pp. 159-160.
9. CA rollo, p. 101.
10. Id. at 101-102.
11. Id. at 102.
12. Id.; See also records, pp. 11 and 152.
13. CA rollo, p. 102.
14. Id.; See also records, p. 6.
15. Id. at 102-103.
16. Id. at 120-121.
17. Id. at 103.
18. Id. at 103-104.
19. Id. at 76-77.
20. Id. at 124. Emphasis in the original.
21. Id. at 44-47.
22. CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE III, SECTIONS 2 AND 3 (2).
23. People v. Sapla, G.R. No. 244045, June 16, 2020.
24. De Villa v. People, G.R. No. 224039, September 11, 2019.
25. CA rollo, pp. 101-102.
26. Id. at 102.
27. RULES OF COURT, RULE 113, SECTION 5 (A) provides:
a) when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing or is attempting to commit an offense.
28. De Villa v. People, supra.
29. Id.
30. CA rollo, pp. 47-48.
31. De Villa v. People, supra.
32. People v. Sioson, G.R. No. 242686, July 7, 2020.
33. People v. Quijano, G.R. No. 247558, February 19, 2020.
34. Records, Decision dated August 21, 2000, pp. 159-160.
35. CA rollo, p. 108.
36. TSN, January 20, 2015, p. 9.
37. Id. at 10.
38. Id. at 12.
39. Id. at 13.
40. Id. at 14; See also CA rollo, pp. 109-112.
41. CA rollo, p. 102.
42. People v. Asierto, G.R. No. 219116, August 26, 2020.
43. CA rollo, p. 51.
44. 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.
45. People v. Angeles, G.R. No. 229099, February 27, 2019.
46. Largo v. People, G.R. No. 201293, June 19, 2019.
47. People v. Bangcola, G.R. No. 237802, March 18, 2019.
48. People v. Angeles, supra.
49. CA rollo, p. 117.
50. Id. at 120; See also records, p. 152.
51. Records, pp. 154-155.
52. CA rollo, p. 120; See also records, pp. 154-155.
53. Records, p. 165.
54. CA rollo, p. 120; See also records, pp. 154-155.
55. Records, pp. 100-102 and 126-127.
56. CA rollo, pp. 120-121.
57. Records, p. 165.
58. Records, Receipt of Evidence, p. 164.
59. Id.
60. Id. at 135-136.
61. Id. See also CA rollo, pp. 120-121.