FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 249717. December 2, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ALFIE AVELINO y EBETNER, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated December 2, 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 249717 (People of the Philippines v. Alfie Avelino y Ebetner). — This resolves the appeal filed by accused-appellant Alfie Avelino y Ebetner (Avelino) seeking the reversal of the Decision 1 dated June 17, 2019 rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11490, which upheld both the Decision 2 dated May 23, 2018 and the Order 3 dated June 8, 2018 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 52 of Guagua Pampanga, in Criminal Case No. G-18-12859. The RTC found Avelino guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment and fined the amount of P500,000.00.
Antecedents
The accusatory portion of the Information charging Avelino for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, states as follows:
That on or about the 12th day of March 2018, in the municipality of Lubao, province of Pampanga, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named, not having been lawfully authorized, for and in consideration of five hundred pesos (Php500.00), did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and felonious sell and deliver to a poseur-buyer one (1) piece heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride weighing 0.047 gram more or less, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law. 4
The prosecution alleged that at about 1:00 p.m. of March 12, 2018, Police Superintendent Monico Cadayona (PSupt. Cadayona), Chief of Police of Lubao Police Station, received an information from a "confidential informant" (CI) that there was rampant peddling of illegal drugs in Barangay Sta. Cruz, Lubao, Pampanga. The "tip" or confidential information prompted PSupt. Cadayona to organize his men for the purpose of carrying out a buy-bust operation. A pre-operation briefing was held, which was attended by the CI and the members of the Drug Enforcement Unit (DEU). Police Officer 2 Randy De Leon Santos (PO2 Santos) was designated as the poseur-buyer of the operation, to be accompanied by the CI, while PO3 Abelardo Manuyag (PO3 Manuyag) and the rest of the members of the DEU were assigned as back-up officers. The P500.00 bill buy-bust money provided by PSupt. Cadayona was marked by PO2 Santos with his initials "RDS" at the back portion thereof. Meanwhile, team leader Police Senior Inspector Brilliant E. Manlutac (PS/Insp. Manlutac) coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) before proceeding with the operation. 5 AaCTcI
Following this, at about 2:30 p.m., the buy-bust team, together with the CI, arrived at Barangay Sta. Cruz, Lubao, Pampanga. The poseur-buyer, PO2 Santos and the CI walked towards the house of Avelino, while the rest of the team strategically positioned themselves where they could observe the transaction. The CI then knocked on the door which was opened by Avelino himself. Upon seeing them, Avelino asked, "Anu kailangan mo, pare?" The CI replied, "Pare meron ka pa jan? gusto sana ng kasama kong umiskor ng limang daan." Avelino answered, "ganoon ba oo mayroon pa ako Heto nga at papagulong pa lang sana ako doon e," while pointing to a table in the living room. While PO2 Santos and the CI were at the doorstep, Avelino went to the living room and picked up a black pouch from the table. When Avelino returned, he asked payment from PO2 Santos, who in turn, gave the P500.00 marked money, which Avelino put inside the pouch. Afterwards, Avelino handed to PO2 Santos one (1) small plastic sachet containing a substance of suspected shabu. Immediately thereafter, PO2 Santos threw his cigarette as a pre-arranged signal that the transaction had been consummated and placed the plastic sachet that he purchased from Avelino, into his right pocket. PO2 Santos quickly grabbed Avelino's hand and introduced himself as a police officer. Avelino attempted to flee from PO2 Santos, but the latter caught up with him. With the help of the back-up officers, PO2 Santos was able to successfully handcuff Avelino. 6
According to the prosecution, PO3 Manuyag searched Avelino's pouch and found three (3) more plastic sachets containing suspected shabu and the P500.00 buy-bust money. The three plastic sachets found inside Avelino's pouch were marked as "P-AEM1," "PAEM2" and "P-AEM3." PO3 Manuyag also found one partially opened plastic sachet and two aluminum foils on the table. The partially opened plastic sachet containing suspected shabu was marked as "P-AEM5" and the two aluminum foil strips with residues of suspected shabu were marked as "P-AEM4" and "P-AEM6." The black pouch and one violet lighter were marked as "P-AEM8" and "P-AEM7," respectively. The aforementioned items confiscated by PO3 Manuyag were all marked by him and inventoried at Avelino's house after his arrest, including the P500.00 buy-bust money with serial number "DH617126." Likewise, PO2 Santos marked the plastic sachet that he purchased from Avelino with "BB-RDS" also while in Avelino's house. The said plastic sachet was included in the inventory under the caption, "Item Subject of Sale/Buy Bust."7
The prosecution further contends that the seized items were inventoried in the presence of two Barangay Kagawad Zocimo T. Alipio (Kagawad Alipio) and Salvador B. Paule (Kagawad Paule), the arresting officers, and Avelino. Photographs of these items as well as of the witnesses were taken during the inventory and signing at the place of arrest. Later, Avelino, together with the apprehending team went to the police station, where media representative, Jimmy Hipolito (Hipolito) of Flagship News, signed the inventory. The purchased and seized items were all then turned over to the investigator, PO2 Ruben Brioso, Jr. (PO2 Brioso). 8
Thereafter, a request for laboratory examination of the purchased and seized items as well as a request for drug testing of Avelino's urine sample were signed by PSupt. Cadayona. The requests and specimen included therein were personally delivered by PO2 Santos to the Regional Crime Laboratory Office 3, Camp Olivas, San Fernando and were received by PO3 Crisanto Dalog. Per Chemistry Report No. D-131-2018 RCLO3, the contents of all the plastic sachets tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. The urine sample taken from the person of Avelino also tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu per Chemistry Report No. DT-150-2018 RCLO3. The parties stipulated that Police Chief Inspector/Forensic Chemist Christine Joy Sia-Padua (PCI Padua) received the seized items presented in court and executed the chemistry reports that contained the results of the laboratory examination and drug test. After the results were obtained, PO2 Santos executed a sworn statement of arrest before Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Desiree Magno-Salomeo. 9
For his defense, Avelino testified that at about 2:00 p.m. of March 12, 2018, he was resting in his house along Gomburza Street, Barangay Sta. Cruz, Lubao, Pampanga, when five (5) armed men wearing civilian clothes barged into his house and pointed their guns at him. He was alone at that time. Thereafter they handcuffed him without telling him the reason for his arrest and without reading him his rights. He noticed one of the men, whom he later identified as PO2 Santos, placed a sachet of shabu on the table. He was then brought to the police station and therein detained. At about 8:00 p.m. of the same day, he was brought to Camp Olivas where a urine sample was collected from him. He asserted that it was his neighbor, named Allan Pangilinan, who wrongfully reported him to the police and with whom he had a fight on March 10, 2018 during a drinking spree. 10 No other witness was presented by the defense.
After trial ensued, the RTC found Avelino guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 in its Decision 11 dated May 23, 2018, the dispositive of which reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, this court hereby (1) finds accused Alfie E. Avelino GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165; and (2) imposes upon accused the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and a fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00).
The shabu involved in this case is hereby ordered transmitted to the PDEA thru the DDB for proper care and disposition as required by R.A. No. 9165.
SO ORDERED. 12
Thereafter, accused filed a Motion for Reconsideration 13 to question the RTC decision. In the Order 14 dated June 8, 2018, the RTC denied the motion for reconsideration.
Aggrieved, Avelino filed a Notice of Appeal, 15 elevating the case to the CA. In the Decision 16 dated June 17, 2019, the CA denied the appeal and affirmed the ruling of the RTC with modification as follows: EcTCAD
WHEREFORE, we DENY the appeal. The decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that in Criminal Case No. G-18-12859, appellant Alfie E. Avelino shall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, without eligibility for parole and to pay a fine of [P]500,000.00
IT IS SO ORDERED. 17
Hence, the present appeal before this Court, where Avelino assails his conviction by reason of: (1) the failure of the prosecution to prove the validity of his warrantless arrest for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, considering that there was no buy-bust operation that took place; (2) the break in the chain of custody of the illegal drugs seized, which particularly affected the integrity and evidentiary value thereof; and (3) the non-compliance of the arresting officers with the procedural safeguards prescribed by Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640. 18
Our Ruling
At the outset, a conviction under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of the presence of the following elements: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. 19 Aside from proving these elements, the prosecution also bears the burden of proving the corpus delicti or the body of the crime. In drug cases, the dangerous drug itself is the very corpus delicti of the violation of the law. 20
While it is true that a buy-bust operation is a legally effective and proven procedure for apprehending drug peddlers and distributors, the law nevertheless requires strict compliance with procedures laid down by it to ensure that rights are safeguarded. Compliance with the chain of custody rule is thus imperative and crucial in any prosecution that follows such operation. It is essential that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit, and that the identity of said drug is established with the same unwavering exactitude as that required to make a finding of guilt. 21
In preserving the integrity of the corpus delicti, this Court has held that the prosecution must account for the four links in its chain of custody, namely: first, the seizure and marking 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. 22
Failure to immediately
Surely, the chain of custody in drug cases always starts with the marking of the relevant substances or articles immediately upon seizure or confiscation. This marking serves to separate the marked substances or articles from the corpus of all other similar or related articles from the time of the seizure or confiscation from the accused until disposal at the end of the criminal proceedings, thereby obviating the hazards of switching, planting, or contamination of the evidence, which destroy the proof of the corpus delicti. 23 Accordingly, this Court, long before Congress passed R.A. No. 9165, had consistently held that failure of the authorities to immediately mark the seized drugs would cast reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti. 24
On this score, the first link in the chain of custody of the corpus delicti has been broken. It does not escape this Court's attention that the seized plastic sachet was not immediately marked upon its turnover to PO2 Santos. This fact was also admitted during trial by no less than PO2 Santos, who narrated that he kept the plastic sachet of suspect shabu he bought from accused-appellant inside the pocket of his shorts for 15 to 20 minutes before marking the same, viz.:
Q So, you actually saw Alfie get the sachet of shabu in the said pouch?
A Yes, madam.
Q Was there any person besides you who saw that?
A The confidential informant who was with me then, madam.
Q After that, no one else?
A No one else, madam.
Q After that, where did you place the plastic sachet of shabu?
A I placed it inside the pocket of my shorts which I was wearing then, madam.
Q Was it in your Salaysay, Mr. Witness, whom (sic) you identified?
A It is not indicated in my Salaysay, madam.
Q So, you would agree with me that you did not indicate here where the said plastic sachet was kept?
A Yes, madam.
Q And after that, what did you do after you have (sic) kept the plastic sachet?
A I already gave the pre-arranged signal and that is throwing the lighted cigarette. At that time I also held the hand of Alfie who was about to go inside their house. I did that so I could handcuff him, madam.
Q Why, did he try to escape?
A The accused was going inside their house at that time, madam, and when PO3 Manuyag and other members of the DEU unit saw my pre-arranged signal, they already approached us and helped me in arresting Alfie Avelino.
Q At that time, where was the product of buy-bust kept?
A It is with me, madam,
Q Did somebody see you keep it there?
A Nobody knows where I kept it, madam, only me.
xxx xxx xxx
Q How many minutes did you mark the items? (sic)
A After we informed the accused of his constitutional rights, the barangay officials and other representatives already arrived and we already made the marking and I think that is about fifteen (15) to twenty (20) minutes, madam. (sic)
xxx xxx xxx
Q Within the fifteen (15) to twenty (20) minutes, where were the product of the buy-bust and the possession kept?(sic)
Court
All right.
Witness
A The product of the buy-bust was in my custody, while the other items confiscated by PO3 Manuyag were in his possession, madam.
Atty. Mandap
Q So you would agree with me that it was only marked after (20) minutes?
A In the presence of . . .
Court
So was it marked after that period of time or not?
Witness
Yes, your honor. 25 (Emphasis supplied)
Notably, the only other person who witnessed accused-appellant handing over the plastic sachet to PO2 Santos is the CI, who unfortunately, was not presented as witness before the RTC to establish that the seized item presented before the court is indeed the very same item sold by accused-appellant to PO2 Santos during the buy-bust operation. HSAcaE
PO2 Santos likewise failed to give account of the precautionary steps he might have undertaken to eliminate the possibility of planting, switching or adulteration of evidence during the 15 to 20-minute interval when he had 0.047 gram of suspected shabu in his possession. In People v. Areola, Jr. y Casica, 26 this Court found the chain of custody to have been broken due to the failure of the prosecution to provide a credible account on the whereabouts and handling of the drugs during the 30 minutes interim when the police officers were waiting for the arrival of the witnesses before marking. Similarly in this case, since this Court could not determine from the records how the miniscule amount of unmarked drugs were handled by PO2 Santos prior to marking, the danger of switching or alteration of the same could not be discounted, which ultimately compromises the integrity of the corpus delicti.
Further, there is nothing in the records that would justify the delay of the apprehending officers in marking. In fact, it is difficult for this Court to believe that PO2 Santos had no opportunity to mark the plastic sachet within at least 15 minutes from seizure thereof, since he was immediately able to restrain and handcuff accused-appellant and was also assisted by PO3 Manuyag and other members of the DEU in the apprehension. With this unexplained procedural lapse, the identity of the seized drugs has not been proven with moral certainty as required by law.
Absence of the media
Aside from the requirement of immediate marking, Paragraph (1), Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, requires the apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory and to take photographs of the seized items immediately after seizure and confiscation thereof, in the presence of the accused or his/her representative or counsel, plus two other witnesses, namely: (1) an elected public official; and (2) a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media:
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 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 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.
In this regard, the procedure enshrined in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, is a matter of substantive law, and cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality, or worse, ignored as an impediment to the conviction of illegal drug suspects. 27 This is because compliance with the chain of custody rule embodied by Section 21 ensures the integrity of the seized items. Non-compliance therewith tarnishes the credibility of the corpus delicti around which prosecutions under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act revolve. Consequently, it also tarnishes the very claim that an offense against the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act was committed. 28
It should be recalled that the prosecution claimed that the inventory was made both at accused-appellant's house during his arrest, and at the police station in the presence of Hipolito, the media representative, based on the Crime Report prepared by PO2 Brioso 29 and the two Sinumpaang Salaysay sa Pag-hahabla at Pag-aaresto executed by PO2 Santos 30 and PO3 Manuyag. 31 A review of the evidence on record, however, shows that the alleged conduct of another inventory at the police station was not established, much less explained by the prosecution. In fact, PO2 Santos, the sole witness for the prosecution, made it clear during trial that the inventory of the seized items was only made at accused-appellant's house and in the presence of accused-appellant and the elected public officials:
Q When did you bring out the plastic sachet from your right pocket?
A The one (1) piece of sachet was just inside my right pocket and I brought that out when we were already conducting the inventory in the presence of the barangay officials and other representatives, ma'am.
Q Where was that inventory?
A Still in the house of Alfie, ma'am. There was a table there, and it was there where we conducted inventory.
Q Do you have proof that the inventory was conducted at the house of the accused?
A Yes, ma'am I have.
Q Can you tell us what is your proof? (sic)
A Pictures taken during the actual inventory, at the time the evidence was marked, ma'am.
xxx xxx xxx
Q So, who were present during the inventory?
A Councilor Alipio, Councilor Paule, Alfie Avelino, myself, PO3 Manuyag and the other members of the operatives, ma'am. (Emphasis supplied) 32
The foregoing testimony is corroborated by the photographs taken at the place of arrest where only Kagawad Alipio and Kagawad Paule were identified as present with the accused-appellant. 33 Meanwhile, not only did PO2 Santos fail to mention any inventory made at the police station; he likewise denied conducting the same at the police station during his direct examination on April 19, 2018, thus: HESIcT
Q: Which came first, the marking of the item or you, give the same to PO2 Brioso? (sic)
A: When we were conducting the inventory in the presence of the representatives, I already put my marking, your honor. (sic)
Q: That was already at the police station?
A: No. At the house of Alfie, your honor. (Emphasis supplied) 34
It is undisputed from the foregoing evidence that the apprehending officers failed to secure the presence of Hipolito, the media representative, during the physical inventory of the seized items at accused-appellant's house, albeit getting him to sign the inventory receipt at the police station. The absence of a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media to witness the physical inventory of the drugs immediately after seizure reveals the officers' abject failure to meet the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.
Certainly, this Court cannot sustain accused-appellant's conviction while there exist doubts surrounding the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti, which were brought about by the non-compliance of police officers with the procedure to ensure the same.
While this Court has recognized that the failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the procedure laid out in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 does not ipso facto render the seizure and custody over the items as void and invalid, this has always been with the caveat that the prosecution still needs to satisfactorily prove that: (a) there is justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 35 Regrettably, the failure of the law enforcers to follow Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 remains unexplained. Apart from lacking justification for their deviation from Section 21, the law enforcers also failed to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti.
Lack of vital pieces of
Finally, the fourth link in the chain of custody of the illegal drugs has not been established.
Jurisprudence dictates that the stipulation to dispense with the testimony of the forensic chemist should include a stipulation that the forensic chemist would have testified to receiving the seized article as marked, properly sealed, and intact, as part of preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item. 36 Here, the stipulations are silent as to the manner by which the specimen was handled as it came to the possession of the forensic chemist PCI Padua.
Moreover, there was no proposed stipulation regarding the forensic chemist's storage and safekeeping of the illegal drug after examination. Settled is the doctrine that absent any testimony regarding the management, storage, and preservation of the illegal drug allegedly seized after its qualitative examination, the fourth link in the chain of custody of the said illegal drug could not be reasonably established. 37
The ruling in People v. Bahoyo, 38 citing People v. Umipang, 39 instructs that when there is gross disregard of the procedural safeguards prescribed in the substantive law, such as R.A. No. 9165, serious uncertainty is generated about the identity of the seized items that the prosecution presented in evidence. As applied to this case, this uncertainty cannot be remedied by simply invoking the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties, for a gross, systematic, or deliberate disregard of the procedural safeguards effectively produces an irregularity in the performance of official duties.
We therefore rule that the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs has not been established against accused-appellant. To hold him criminally liable, this Court must be assured that the drugs presented as corpus delicti are exactly what the prosecution purports them to be, and that any activity or transaction pertaining to them indeed transpired. The lack of justification for the procedural lapses committed by the apprehending officers, worsened by the non-preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti, ultimately militate against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt in this case. caITAC
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, this Court resolves to GRANT the instant appeal. The Decision dated June 17, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11490 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Alfie Avelino y Ebetner is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged on the ground of reasonable doubt.
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is hereby ORDERED to: a) immediately release accused-appellant Alfie Avelino y Ebetner from custody unless he is being held for some other lawful cause; and b) submit his or her report on the action taken within five (5) days from notice. Copies of this Resolution shall also be furnished to the Police General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information.
Let an entry of judgment be issued.
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. Penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., with Associate Justices Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez and Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig concurring; rollo, pp. 3-26.
2. Rendered by Judge Jonel S. Mercado; records, pp. 127-137.
3.Id. at 152.
4.Rollo, p. 3.
5.Id. at 5.
6.Id. at 5-6.
7.Id. at 6-7.
8.Id. at 7.
9.Id. at 7-8.
10.Id. at 8-9.
11. Records, pp. 127-137.
12.Id. at 137.
13.Id. at 139-150.
14.Id. at 152.
15. CA rollo, pp. 13-15.
16.Rollo, pp. 3-26.
17.Id. at 25.
18. CA rollo, pp. 34-51.
19.People v. Dela Cruz y Dayo and Forbes y Dayo, G.R. No. 238212, January 27, 2020.
20.People v. Dumanjug, G.R. No. 235468, July 1, 2019, 907 SCRA 89, 100-101.
21.Id.
22.People of the Philippines v. Michael Andanar y Siendo alias "Kokak" and Mary Jane Garbo y Mariposque, G.R. No. 246284, June 16, 2021.
23.People v. San Jose, 836 Phil. 355, 373 (2018).
24.People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 232 (2015).
25. TSN, April 26, 2018, pp. 5-8.
26. G.R. No. 251919, May 12, 2021 (Resolution).
27.People v. Tomawis, 830 Phil. 385, 404 (2018).
28.People v. Que, 824 Phil. 882, 896 (2018).
29. Exhibit "A," records, pp. 83-84.
30. Exhibit "B," id. at 85-86.
31. Exhibit "C," id. at 87-88.
32. TSN, April 12, 2018, p. 8.
33. Exhibits "K" to "K-2," records, pp. 20-21.
34. TSN, April 19, 2018, p. 9.
35.Ramil Cha y Azores @ Obet v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 246550, September 16, 2020.
36.People v. Andanar y Siendo, G.R. No. 246284, June 16, 2021.
37.People v. Ubungen y Pulido, 836 Phil. 888, 902 (2018).
38. G.R. No. 238589, June 26, 2019, 906 SCRA 487, 503.
39. 686 Phil. 1024, 1053-1054 (2012).