People v. Anay y Tolentino

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 256379. November 18, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ANTHONY ANAY y TOLENTINO AND IAN PABILONA y NERI, accused-appellants.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 18, 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC

"G.R. No. 256379 (People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, v. Anthony Anay y Tolentino and Ian Pabilona y Neri, accused-appellants).

This is an appeal from the October 28, 2019 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01964-MIN, whereby the CA affirmed the May 11, 2018 Decision 2 and May 23, 2018 Resolution 3 of the Regional Trial Court, Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 23 (RTC), finding Anthony Anay y Tolentino (Anay) and Ian Pabilona y Neri (Pabilona; collectively, accused-appellants), guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 4 in Crim. Case No. CR-DRG 2016-848. The RTC also convicted accused-appellant Pabilona for violating Sec. 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 in Crim. Case No. CR-DRG-2016-849.

Antecedents

Accused-appellants were charged with violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 in an information which reads:

Crim. Case No. CR-DRG 2016-848

That on July 20, 2016, around 3:30 o'clock in the afternoon at Gaston Park, Capistrano-Fernandez Streets, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating with each other, without being authorized by law to sell, deliver, or give away to another, any dangerous drugs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and criminally sell to PO3 Leonard P. Comilang & SPO1 Erwin L. Lingaton of Police Station 1 Cagayan de Oro City, one heat-sealed transparent plastic cellophane containing white crystalline substance of methamphetamine hydrochloride, locally known as [shabu], a dangerous drug, weighing 2.8698 grams, in consideration of Php7,000.00, Philippine currency, which after confirmatory test conducted by the RCLO-10, was found positive of the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, accused knowing the same to be a dangerous drug.

Contrary to the afore-cited law. 5

Pabilona was also charged with illegal possession of drugs pursuant to Sec. 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, viz.:

Crim. Case No. CR-DRG-2016-849

That on July 20, 2016, around 3:30 in the afternoon at Gaston Park, Capistrano-Fernandez Streets, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law to use or possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, criminally, and knowingly have in his possession, custody, and control, two [(2)] pieces of heat-sealed transparent plastic cellophane containing white crystalline substance of methamphetamine hydrochloride, locally known as [shabu], a dangerous drug, with a total net weight of 0.0588 gram, accused well-knowing that what was recovered from his possession and/or control is a dangerous drug; that after confirmatory test conducted by the RCLO-10, of the recovered item from accused's possession and/or control, the same were found positive of the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu, a dangerous drug.

Contrary to and in violation of Section 11 of R.A. 9165. 6

During arraignment on August 8, 2016, accused-appellants pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged. 7 Trial on the merits ensued thereafter.

Version of the Prosecution

On July 20, 2016, at around 1:30 p.m., SPO2 Armand Hernaez (SPO2 Hernaez) of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Station 1, Divisoria, Cagayan de Oro City, received an information from a civilian informant (CI) that accused-appellants were selling illegal drugs at Gaston Park, Capistrano-Fernandez Streets, Barangay I, Cagayan de Oro City. SPO2 Hernaez immediately informed their station commander, Police Senior Inspector Maricris Mulat, who then formed a team to validate the information for the conduct of a buy-bust operation. The team coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) and prepared blank inventory and seizure receipt forms. 8

SPO2 Hemaez, SPO2 Allan Radaza (SPO2 Radaza), SPO1 Frederick Yamis (SPO1 Yamis), SPO1 Erwin Lingaton (SPO1 Lingaton), SPO1 Arvin Cabangal (SPO1 Cabangal), PO3 Leonard Comilang (PO3 Comilang), and the CI were present during the briefing where PO3 Comilang was designated as the poseur-buyer. The team prepared seven (7) pieces of One Thousand Peso (P1,000.00) bills, one real and six fake, as buy-bust money, and then proceeded to Gaston Park. 9

At around 3:30 p.m., accused-appellants arrived at Gaston Park on board a taxi. Accused-appellants approached the CI and PO3 Comilang who were already waiting for them. PO3 Comilang offered to buy P7,000.00 worth of shabu. He then handed over to Pabilona the buy-bust money, who in tum, handed the same to Anay. Thereafter, Anay gave PO3 Comilang one (1) sachet containing white crystalline substance. After checking the item, PO3 Comilang introduced himself as a police officer and the rest of the team rushed to them. PO3 Comilang frisked Pabilona and recovered two (2) more sachets from the latter's left pocket. He also recovered the buy-bust money from the right hand of Anay. 10

After the arrest, PO3 Comilang marked the seized sachet purchased from accused-appellants with "LPC BB1" while the other 2 sachets in possession of Pabilona were marked with "LPC POSS" and "LPC POSS-1." Thereafter, an inventory of the seized items was conducted at the crime scene in the presence of accused-appellants and witnessed by Barangay Chairman Anthony Abejuela (Barangay Chairman Abejuela). Photographs of the marking and the inventory were also taken during that time. 11

Thereafter, the team proceeded to the police station where PO3 Comilang prepared a request for urine test of accused-appellants and a request for laboratory examination of the seized sachets. PO3 Comilang and SPO1 Lingaton then brought accused-appellants and the seized sachets to the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory, Office No. 10, Camp Evangelista, Patag, Cagayan de Oro City. PCI Erma Salvacion-Sampaga (PCI Salvacion-Sampaga) received the request and the seized sachets. 12

After examination, PCI Salvacion-Sampaga issued Chemistry Report No. D-622-2016, which found the three (3) seized sachets positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, and Chemistry Report Nos. DTCRIM-544 & 545-2016, which likewise found the urine samples positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride. 13 After which, she turned over the seized items to the evidence custodian for safekeeping.

Version of the Defense

Pabilona testified that on July 20, 2016, at around 1 p.m. he went to the Roman Catholic Cathedral Church at Gaston Park (cathedral) because his cousin, Anay, asked to accompany him to the church and to the cemetery to visit the grave of Anay's father. Before going to the cathedral, his childhood friend Renie Villarin (Henie) called and asked Pabilona to accompany him to the tailoring shop to which Pabilona declined. Pabilona then hitched a ride with his neighbor, Fernando Galope, going to the cathedral. 14

Upon arriving at Gaston Park, Henie, who was at the opposite side of the park, called him. Pabilona approached Henie, but to his surprise, Henie's companion started to search and frisk him. He asked Henie what it was all about but the latter said he did not know. He was then asked about his companion, but he told them that he does not know if his cousin was coming. While waiting at a bench near Gaston Park, Pabilon received a call from Anay, but Henie's companion answered the same. Thereafter, Pabilona saw a Revo SUV block a taxi which Anay was riding. Five (5) persons alighted from the Revo SUV and pointed a gun at Anay and the taxi driver. Anay alighted from the taxi and was immediately mauled and frisked by the said men. 15

Accused-appellants both claimed that they were handcuffed together with Henie. To their surprise, accused-appellants also saw that items were being displayed at the back of the bench where they were seated. Thereafter, they were brought to the police station. The following day, they were taken from the Maharlika Police Station to Police Precinct/Station 1 Amphitheatre where they were given mineral water to drink, which tasted odd. Pabilona tried to complain but PO3 Comilang hit his nape. Accused-appellants denied selling the prohibited drugs or even having any in their possession. 16

The RTC Ruling

In its May 11, 2018 Decision, 17 the RTC found accused-appellants guilty of the charges. The RTC held that the prosecution was able to establish the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Secs. 5 and 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. The RTC gave more credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and disregarded accused-appellants' denial for being self-serving. The fallo reads —

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

1. In Criminal Case No. CR-DRG-2016-848, the court finds the accused, ANTHONY ANAY y TOLENTINO and IAN PABILONA y NERI, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the charge of violation of Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 and sentences them to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos [(P500,000.00)].

2. In Criminal Case No. CR-DRG-2016-849, the court finds the accused, IAN PABILONA Y NERI, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 11, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 and sentences her to imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and to pay a fine of Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00);

The three (3) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance locally known as [shabu] with a total weight of 2.9286 grams marked as Exhibits "C" to "D-1" for the prosecution are hereby ordered confiscated and destroyed pursuant to Sec. 20, Art. II of R.A. 9165.

SO ORDERED.18

Aggrieved, accused-appellants filed their appeals separately.

The CA's Ruling

In its October 28, 2019 Decision, 19 the CA affirmed accused-appellants' conviction. It reiterated the ruling of the RTC that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. It held that the inconsistencies in the testimonies of PO3 Comilang and SPO1 Lingaton as to who approached first during the buy-bust operation did not affect the material facts establishing the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. It opined that the absence of a representative from the media and the DOJ at the time the evidence was being marked, inventoried, and photographed did not affect the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. It likewise held that despite the procedural lapses, the prosecution was able to show that the drugs taken from accused-appellants were the same drugs presented in court. The fallo reads:

FOR THESE REASONS, we DENY both appeals. The assailed Decision dated May 11, 2018 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED. 20

Hence, this appeal.

Issues

Pabilona raises the following error:

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE FACT THAT HIS GUILT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. 21

Anay, on the other hand, argues that:

I.

APPLYING THE OBJECTIVE TEST, THERE WAS NO LEGITIMATE BUY-BUST OPERATION SINCE THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES FAILED TO PROVIDE A COMPLETE AND DETAILED NARRATION OF FACTS LEADING TO THE SUPPOSED SALE OF ILLEGAL DRUGS;

II.

NO MARKING OF THE DRUGS SEIZED WERE DONE IN THE PRESENCE OF THE BARANGAY CAPTAIN WHO IS THE INSULATING WITNESS IN THIS CASE; AND

III.

THERE WAS A BREAK IN THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY BECAUSE TWO (2) PERSONS WHO HAD A HAND OVER THE DRUGS WERE NOT PRESENTED IN COURT. 22

In their respective Appellant's Briefs 23 filed before the CA, accused-appellants similarly insist that the prosecution's version on the conduct of the buy-bust operation is doubtful, as there were various inconsistencies in their testimonies. They also argue that the chain of custody rule was not complied with due to the absence of a barangay official and a representative from the media or from the National Prosecution Service (NPS) during the marking of the seized evidence and during the inventory thereof. They also claim that the non-presentation in court of the duty officer and the evidence custodian creates a gap in the chain of custody.

In its Appellee's Brief, 24 the OSG argues that the prosecution duly proved all the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The OSG insists 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 items. The OSG further claims that the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are more worthy of faith and credence than accused-appellants' defense of denial and frame-up.

The Court's Ruling

After careful examination, this Court finds the appeal meritorious. It is a well-established rule that an appeal in criminal cases throws the whole case open for review. 25 Thus, the appellate court has the competence to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law. 26

To sustain a conviction for the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the necessary elements are: (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. 27 It is essential that a transaction or sale be proved to have actually taken place coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of the corpus delicti. 28 The corpus delicti is the dangerous drugs itself. 29

On the other hand, to successfully prosecute a case of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be established: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. 30

In both cases, it is essential that the identity of the seized drug be established with moral certainty, and it must be proven with exactitude that the substance bought/recovered during the buy-bust operation is exactly the same substance offered in evidence before the court. 31 This requirement is known as the chain of custody rule under R.A. No. 9165 created to safeguard against doubts concerning the identity of the seized drugs. 32

Chain of custody means the duly recorded, authorized movements, and custody of the seized drugs at each stage, from the moment of confiscation to the receipt in the forensic laboratory for examination until it is presented to the court. 33

To ensure the integrity of the seized drugs, Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 establishes the procedure for its custody during a buy-bust operation, or during the execution of a search warrant. 34 The relevant portion of the provision states:

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[.]

This chain of custody rule was further expounded under Sec. 21 (a), Art. II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165:

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[.]

Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 requires the apprehending team, after seizure and confiscation, to immediately conduct a physical inventory, and photograph, the seized drugs in the presence of (a) the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, (b) a representative from the media, (c) a representative from the DOJ, and (d) an elected public official. These four witnesses must all sign the copies of the inventory and obtain a copy thereof.

R.A. No. 10640, 35 which amended Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and became effective on August 7, 2014, requires only the following witnesses to be present during the inventory and taking of photographs of the seized evidence: (a) the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, (b) an elected public official, and (c) a representative of the NPS or the media.

In the instant case, since the offense charged was committed on July 20, 2016, the provisions of Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, shall apply. Thus, the insulating witnesses, namely, an elected public official and a representative of the NPS or the media, as mandated by law to be present during the inventory and taking of photographs, must be complied with.

The apprehending team's

At the outset, it must be pointed out that the marking of the plastic sachets allegedly recovered from the accused-appellants was irregularly done. It was not compliant with paragraph 2.35, Sections 2-6 of the Revised PNP Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operation and Investigation, which provides:

2.35 The Seizing Officer must mark the evidence with his initials indicating therein the date, time and place where the evidence was found/recovered or seized. 36

Based on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly PO3 Comilang, only the initials of the seizing officer was inscribed on the specimens, omitting the date, time, and place of the buy-bust operation in clear contravention of the PNP's own set of procedures for the conduct of its operations. aScITE

The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses also reveal that only Barangay Chairman Abejuela was present at the time of marking, inventory and photographing of the seized items. 37 There was no representative from the NPS or the media. The CA acknowledged the absence of the required witnesses and the failure by the prosecution to justify the same, but nevertheless opined that the integrity of the seized items was duly preserved. 38

The Court does not agree.

In People v. Binasing, 39 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. Here, the failure of the police officers to comply is fatal to the prosecution's case.

Also, in People v. Mendoza, 40 the Court emphasized that the presence of the insulating witnesses is a safeguard against the evils of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence.

While noncompliance may be allowed under justifiable circumstances, jurisprudence dictates that a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses must therefore be adduced. 41 In People v. Ramos, 42 this Court explained that the prosecution must provide proof of earnest efforts to secure the attendance of the witnesses, to wit:

It is well to note that the absence of these required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible. However, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses under Section 21 of RA 9165 must be adduced. In People v. Umipang, the Court held that the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under the law for "a sheer statement that representatives were unavailable without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look for other representatives, given the circumstances is to be regarded as a flimsy excuse." Verily, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance. These considerations arise from the fact that police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time — beginning from the moment they have received the information about the activities of the accused until the time of his arrest — to prepare for a buy-bust operation and consequently, make the necessary arrangements beforehand knowing full well that they would have to strictly comply with the set procedure prescribed in Section 21 of RA 9165. As such, police officers are compelled not only to state reasons for their non-compliance, but must in fact, also convince the Court that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedure, and that under the given circumstances, their actions were reasonable. 43 (underscoring and citations omitted, emphases supplied)

In this case, however, the prosecution offered no justification as to the absence of a representative from the media or the NPS. The prosecution did not even recognize their procedural lapses or give any plausible explanation on why the apprehending team did not conduct the marking, inventory, and taking of photographs of the seized evidence in the presence of a media of NPS representative. Neither was it proven by the prosecution that the police officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of the required witnesses during that time. Here, Barangay Chairman Abejuela testified that he was just on his way to office when the arresting officers saw him and requested him to sign the accomplished inventory. 44 Obviously, the arresting officers did not secure the presence of the insulating witnesses ahead of time.

By failing to follow even the basic witness requirement under Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 10640, the police officers cannot be presumed to have regularly exercised their duties during the buy-bust operation. The blatant violations committed by police officers cannot be countenanced. 45 Otherwise, the Court will be giving the law enforcers a license to abuse their power and authority, defeating the purpose of the law, violating human rights, and eroding the justice system in this country. 46

In People v. Zheng Bai Hui, 47 the Court held that it will not presume to set an apriori basis of what detailed acts police authorities might credibly undertake and carry out in their entrapment operations. However, given the police operational procedures and the fact that a buy-bust is a planned operation, it strains credulity why the buy-bust team could not have ensured the presence of the required witnesses pursuant to Sec. 21 or at the very least marked, photographed and inventoried the seized item according to the procedures in their own operations manual.

The prosecution failed to

The last link involves the submission of the seized drugs by the forensic chemist to the court when presented as evidence in the criminal case. 48 In this case, PCI Salvacion-Sampaga failed to testify on how she safeguarded the illegal drugs, if at all, from the time she received it until her qualitative examination thereof, and prior to her appearance in court. Worse, the evidence custodian to whom she turned over the seized evidence was not presented as a witness. As such, the prosecution was not able to establish with clarity and certainty the proper handling and custody of the specimen by the custodian. Absent any testimony on the management, storage, and preservation of the illegal drugs allegedly seized after their qualitative examination, the fourth link in the chain of custody could not be reasonably established. 49 This casts serious doubts on the identity and the integrity of the corpus delicti and leaves several questions unanswered. In People v. Angeles, 50 the Court held:

Clearly, the third and fourth links in the chain of custody are sorely lacking. PO2 Saez's lone testimony leaves several questions unanswered. What happened to the drugs from the time Relos received it from PO2 Saez until it was eventually transmitted to the forensic chemist for examination? Were there other persons who came into contact with the drugs before the forensic chemist subjected it to examination? Who handed the drugs to the forensic chemist? How did Relos and the forensic chemist handle the drugs? Who ultimately transmitted the drugs seized from Angeles to the trial court to be used as evidence against him? The necessary details to prove the preservation of the integrity of the drugs recovered from Angeles remain a mystery. All these are left open to the realm of possibilities such that the evidentiary value of drugs presented in court was unduly prejudiced; considering that it cannot be said with certainty that the drugs were never compromised or tampered with.51 (emphasis supplied)

Also, in Mallillin v. People, 52 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.53 (emphasis supplied)

Clearly, there were significant gaps in the chain of custody that weaken the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. Given the procedural lapses, serious uncertainty hangs over the identification of the corpus delicti which the prosecution introduced as evidence. 54 Consequently, the prosecution's failure to justify such lapses entitles the [accused-appellants] to an acquittal based on reasonable doubt. 55

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is GRANTED. The October 28, 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01964-MIN, which affirmed the May 11, 2018 Decision and May 23, 2018 Resolution of the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 23, in Criminal Case No. CR-DRG-2016-848, finding accused-appellants Anthony Anay y Tolentino and Ian Pabilona y Neri guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and in Criminal Case No. CR-DRG-2016-849 finding accused-appellant Ian Pabilona y Neri guilty of violating Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellants are ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Director General of the New Bilibid Prison, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ORDERED to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE accused-appellants from detention, unless they are being lawfully held in custody for any other reason, and to INFORM this Court of his action hereon within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.

Let entry of judgment be issued immediately. DETACa

SO ORDERED."LOPEZ, M., J., on official leave.

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. 5-20; penned by Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camello with Associate Justices Oscar V. Badelles and Associate Justice Lily V. Biton, concurring.

2. CA rollo, pp. 48-75; penned by Presiding Judge Vincent F.B. Rosales.

3.Id. at 142-144.

4. Otherwise known as "The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."

5. CA rollo, p. 48.

6.Id. at 49.

7.Id.

8.Rollo, p. 8.

9.Id.

10.Id. at 8-9.

11.Id. at 9.

12.Id.

13.Id.

14. CA rollo, pp. 57-58.

15.Id. at 58.

16.Id. at 58-59.

17.Supra note 2.

18. CA rollo, pp. 74-75.

19.Supra note 1.

20.Rollo, p. 19.

21. CA rollo, p. 20.

22.Id. at 89-90.

23.Id. at 17-47, Appellant's Brief filed by Pabilona; id. at 89-110, Appellant's Brief filed by Anay.

24.Id. at 154-168.

25. See People v. Ygoy, G.R. No. 215712, August 7, 2019, 912 SCRA 420, 431.

26.Cunanan v. People, G.R. No. 237116, November 12, 2018, 885 SCRA 321, 333.

27.People v. Roble, 663 Phil. 147, 157 (2011).

28.Id.

29.Tumabini v. People, G.R. No. 224495, February 19, 2020.

30.People v. Climaco, 687 Phil. 593, 603 (2012), citing People v. Alcuizar, 662 Phil. 794, 808 (2011).

31.People v. Alon-Alon, G.R. No. 237803, November 27, 2019, citing People v. Bartolini, 791 Phil. 626, 634 (2016).

32.People v. Climaco, 687 Phil. 593, 609 (2012), citing People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 225 (2015).

33. Sec. 1 (b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002.

34. See People v. Datuin, G.R. No. 227019, June 10, 2020.

35. 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 (see G.R. No. 236304, November 5, 2018) and Matabilas v. People (see G.R. No. 243615, November 11, 2019), R.A. No. 10640 was approved on July 15, 2014. Under Sec. 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.

36. Revised PNP Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operation and Investigation, September 2014.

37. CA rollo, p. 160.

38.Id. at 215-217.

39. 835 Phil. 673 (2011), as cited in Jayectin v. People, G.R. No. 247309, October 7, 2020.

40. 736 Phil. 749 (2014), as cited in Jayectin v. People, supra.

41.People v. Baptista, G.R. No. 225783, August 20, 2018, 878 SCRA 124, 138, citing People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024, 1052 (2012).

42. 826 Phil. 981 (2018).

43.Id. at 996-997.

44. TSN, August 10, 2017, p. 6.

45.People v. Cutamora, G.R. No. 233541, June 8, 2020.

46.Id.

47. 393 Phil. 68, 133 (2000).

48.People v. Dahil and Castro, 750 Phil. 212, 221-222 (2015).

49.People v. Ubungen, 836 Phil. 888, 902 (2018).

50. G.R. No. 218947, June 20, 2018, 867 SCRA 281, as cited in People v. Labadan, G.R. No. 237769, March 11, 2019, 895 SCRA 600.

51.Id. at 296.

52. 576 Phil. 576 (2008).

53.Id. at 587.

54.People v. Bangcola, G.R. No. 237802, March 18, 2019, 897 SCRA 330, 356.

55.People v. Abdula, G.R. No. 212192, November 21, 2018, 886 SCRA 383, 390.