SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 207984. September 13, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.LONGPI BAGUL y KULAW, ALI BAGUL y KULAW, and KAMAL BAGUL y KULAW, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated13 September 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 207984 (People of the Philippines v. Longpi Bagul y Kulaw, Ali Bagul y Kulaw, and Kamal Bagul y Kulaw). —
Considering the motion of the Public Attorney's Office for extension of thirty (30) days from March 13, 2021 within which to file compliance with the Resolution dated January 11, 2021, as counsel has yet to receive a certified true copy of the Death Certificate of accused-appellant Kamal Bagul y Kulaw (Kamal) from either the Philippine Statistics Office or the Documents Section of the Bureau of Corrections, the Court resolves to DISPENSE WITH the filing of the aforesaid compliance.
Assailed in this ordinary appeal 1 is the Decision 2 dated October 22, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04879, which denied the appeal of accused-appellants Longpi Bagul y Kulaw (Longpi), Ali Bagul y Kulaw (Ali), and Kamal Bagul y Kulaw (Kamal; collectively, accused-appellants), and accordingly, found: (a) Longpi and Ali guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, and Illegal Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus, and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs, respectively defined and penalized under Sections 5, 11, and 12, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, 3 otherwise known as the 'Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002'; and (b) Kamal guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, as defined and penalized under Section 11, Article II of the same Act.
The Facts
This case stemmed from five (5) Informations filed before Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 164 (RTC) charging: (a) Longpi and Ali of violation of Sections 5, 11, and 12, Article II of RA 9165; and (b) Kamal of violation of Section 11, Article II of the same Act, the accusatory portions of which read:
Criminal Case No. 15242-D(Violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 against Longpi and Ali)
On or about November 8, 2006, in Pasig City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, conspiring and confederating together and both of them mutually helping and aiding with one another, not being lawfully authorized to sell any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously sell, deliver and given [sic] away to PO1 Philip Aure, one (1) piece heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing of two (2) centigrams (0.02 gram) of white crystalline substance, which was found positive to the test for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4 CAIHTE
Criminal Case No. 15243-D(Violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 against Ali)
On or about November 8, 2006, in Pasig City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, and under his custody and control one (1) pc. unsealed transparent plastic sachet containing traces of white crystalline substance, which was found positive to the test for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
Criminal Case No. 15244-D(Violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 against Kamal)
On or about November 8, 2006, in Pasig City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, and under his custody and control one (1) pc. heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing two (2) centigrams (0.02 gram) of white crystalline substance, which was found positive to the test for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
Criminal Case No. 15245-D(Violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 against Longpi)
On or about November 8, 2006, in Pasig City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, and under his custody and control one (1) pc. heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing two (2) centigrams (0.02 gram) of white crystalline substance, which was found positive to the test for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 7
Criminal Case No. 15246-D(Violation of Section 12, Article II of RA 9165 against Longpi and Ali)
On or about November 8, 2006, in Pasig City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly possess and have under their custody and control one (1) strip of aluminum foil, one (1) rolled aluminum foil, nine (9) unused transparent plastic bags, one (1) disposable lighter and one (1) unsealed transparent plastic sachets, which are instruments, equipment, apparatuses or paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, sniffing, consuming and ingesting 'shabu,' a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 8
The prosecution alleged that on November 8, 2006, pursuant to a tip of a confidential informant (CI) of the illegal drug activities of the Bagul brothers at Brgy. Pinagbuhatan, Pasig City, members of the Pasig City Police Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Forces conducted a buy-bust operation against accused-appellants. At the target area, the CI and PO1 Philip Aure (PO1 Aure), who acted as the poseur-buyer, approached accused-appellants and told them that PO1 Aure wanted to buy shabu. Subsequently, PO1 Aure handed the marked money of Two Hundred Pesos (P200.00) to Longpi, prompting Ali to give him a plastic sachet, which PO1 Aure visually confirmed contained shabu. Once PO1 Aure executed the pre-arranged signal, Ali, Longpi, and Kamal were arrested. Upon searching Ali, PO1 Aure found and confiscated another plastic sachet with traces of white crystalline substance, empty plastic sachets, one (1) aluminum tin foil, one (1) lighter, and money worth more than P200.00. PO1 Wilmer Quidep's (PO1 Quidep) search of Longpi resulted in the confiscation of one (1) plastic sachet, one (1) rolled aluminum foil, and two (2) pieces of P100.00 bills, while one (1) plastic sachet of suspected shabu was recovered from Kamal. All confiscated items were marked in the presence of the accused-appellants. The apprehending officers then brought accused-appellants and the seized items to the police headquarters. Subsequently, PO1 Aure and PO1 Quidep delivered the seized items to the crime laboratory, where they were personally received by Police Inspector/Forensic Chemist Loudeliza G. Cejes 9 and recorded by PO1 De Jesus. 10 The seized items tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. 11 In an Order 12 dated May 28, 2007, the RTC dispensed with the testimony of the forensic chemist, in view of the stipulation entered into by the prosecution and the defense. 13
In defense, Ali claimed that he was at home with his mother Mauli (Mauli), his two (2) brothers Longpi and Kamal, two (2) children, and sister Dahlia (Dahlia) when five (5) armed men in civilian clothes suddenly entered their house, pointed a gun at them, and asked them to lie on the floor. They were then asked to bring out their firearms, which Ali responded to by saying that they don't have any guns. The armed men then introduced themselves as policemen and proceeded to search the house, where they allegedly recovered P6,000.00. Thereafter, the armed men tied accused-appellants' hands, boarded them onto a white car, and delivered them to the police station. There, they were undressed and frisked, but nothing was recovered. He further averred that: (a) PO1 Aure offered to free them for P100,000.00 each; (b) it was only at the inquest proceedings that they saw the plastic sachets allegedly recovered from them; and (c) they didn't file a case against the police officers as Mauli and Dahlia knew nothing about filing a complaint. His testimony was corroborated by the testimonies of Longpi and Dahlia. 14 DETACa
In a Joint Decision 15 dated May 13, 2010, the RTC found accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of all crimes charged, as follows: (a) in Criminal Case No. 15242-D, Longpi and Ali were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, and accordingly, sentenced to each suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, and each to pay a fine in the amount of P500,000.00, with all the accessory penalties under the law; (b) in Criminal Case No. 15243-D, Ali was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, and accordingly, sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years and one (1) day, as maximum, and to pay a fine in the amount of P300,000.00; (c) in Criminal Case No. 15244-D, Kamal was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, and accordingly, sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years and one (1) day, as maximum, and to pay a fine in the amount of P300,000.00; (d) in Criminal Case No. 15245-D, Longpi was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, and accordingly, sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years and one (1) day, as maximum, and to pay a fine in the amount of P300,000.00; and (e) in Criminal Case No. 15246-D, Longpi and Ali were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, and accordingly, sentenced to each suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of six (6) months and one (1) day, as minimum, to two (2) years and six (6) months, as maximum, and each to pay a fine in the amount of P10,000.00. 16
The RTC found that the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of the crimes charged. It gave credence to the affirmative testimonies of the arresting officers over the accused-appellants' bare denial as the former were not only corroborated by documentary and object evidence, but also carried the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. 17
On appeal, the CA promulgated a Decision dated October 22, 2012, affirming the convictions, holding that the prosecution was able to establish the conduct of the buy-bust operation, as well as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items as the chain of custody was preserved. 18
Hence, this appeal seeking that the aforementioned convictions be overturned.
The Court's Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
At the outset, it must be stressed that an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review, and thus, it is the duty of the reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned. 19 The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law. 20
The elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 are: (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. On the other hand, the elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 are: (a) the accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited drug; (b) such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. 21 Finally, the crime of Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia is deemed consummated the moment the accused is found in possession of said articles without the necessary license or prescription. 22
Jurisprudence states that in these cases, it is essential that the identity of the seized drug and/or paraphernalia be established with moral certainty. Thus, in order to obviate any unnecessary doubts on such identity, the prosecution has to show an unbroken chain of custody over the same. It must be able to account for each link in the chain of custody over the dangerous drug/paraphernalia from the moment of seizure up to its presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti. 23
In Dela Riva v. People, 24 the Court explained that the chain of custody is divided into four (4) links: 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. 25 Notably, RA 9165, its Implementing Rules and Regulations, and RA 10640 26 require that all items seized from the accused, particularly, 'all dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered,' must undergo the proper chain of custody procedure as provided therein in order to preserve their integrity and evidentiary value. 27 As part of the chain of custody procedure, the law requires, inter alia, that the physical inventory and photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after its seizure and confiscation and in the presence of the accused and the witnesses required under RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640. 28
The law further requires that the inventory and photography be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, 29 a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official; 30 or (b) if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service 31or the media. 32 The law requires the presence of these witnesses primarily 'to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence.' 33
As a general rule, compliance with the chain of custody procedure is strictly enjoined as the same has been regarded not merely as a procedural technicality but as a matter of substantive law. 34 This is because '[t]he law has been 'crafted by Congress as safety precautions to address potential police abuses, especially considering that the penalty imposed may be life imprisonment.'' 35 aDSIHc
Nonetheless, the Court has recognized that due to varying field conditions, strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure may not always be possible. 36 As such, the failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the same would not ipso facto render the seizure and custody over the items as void and invalid, provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves that: (a) there is a justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 37 The foregoing is based on the saving clause mandated under RA 10640. 38 It should, however, be emphasized that for the saving clause to apply, the prosecution must duly explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses, 39 and that the justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact, because the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist. 40
ln this case, the Court finds that the apprehending officers committed unjustified deviations from the prescribed chain of custody rule, particularly on the first and fourth links, thereby putting into question the integrity and evidentiary value of the items purportedly seized from accused-appellants.
As to the first link, while it is shown that the apprehending officers were able to mark the confiscated items immediately after seizure and in the presence of accused-appellants, the records are bereft of any indication that the requisite inventory and photography of the seized items in the presence of the required witnesses were conducted. In fact, the arresting officers neither testified as to the conduct of such inventory or photography, nor provided any justifiable reason for their failure to do so. It is settled that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are compromised if the apprehending officers, without any justifiable reason, fail to conduct its inventory and photography in the manner provided for by the law; thereby, warranting the acquittal of the accused. 41
Anent the fourth link, it is well to point out that the testimony of the forensic chemist has been dispensed with in light of the stipulations entered into by the prosecution and the defense. In this regard, case law instructs that if the forensic chemist's testimony is dispensed with, the parties must agree to stipulate that: (a) the forensic chemist received the seized article as marked, properly sealed, and intact; (b) he/she resealed it after examination of the contents; and (c) he/she placed his/her own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered pending trial. Absent such stipulations, the fourth link cannot be established, thus, resulting in the acquittal of the accused. 42
Here, these requisites have not been complied with, considering that the stipulations of the prosecution and the defense as regards the forensic chemist's testimony were limited to the receipt of the specimen by the crime laboratory, the qualitative examination made of the specimen, and the analytical results obtained therefrom, to wit:
The testimony of prosecutor's witness, P/Sr. Insp. Lourdeliza Gural-Cejes has been dispensed after the public prosecutor and the defense counsel stipulated on the following: (A) That in relation to the arrest of accused Longpi K. Bagul, Ali K. Bagul and Kamal K. Bagul on November 8, 2006, along Molave Compound, Barangay Pinagbuhatan, Pasig City, the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special Operation Task Force of Pasig City Police Station made a request to the Eastern Police District Crime Laboratory for examination on the following pieces of evidence attached to the said request: 1. Three (3) pieces of heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing undetermined amount of white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu with markings: (a) EXH. 'A' ABK/PA 08/11/06 with signature; (b) EXH. 'B' KBK/WBQ 11-08-06 with signature; (c) EXH. 'B1' LBK/WBQ 11-08-06 with signature, but not as to the source; 2. One (1) strip aluminum foil with suspected shabu residue mark as EXH. 'C' ABK/PA 08/11/06 with signature; (d) one (1) rolled aluminum foil mark as EXH. 'C1' LBK/WBQ 11-08-06 with signature; (e) plastic sachets with markings EXH. 'B' ABK/PA 11/08/06 with signature; (f) one lighter with marking EXH. 'D' ABK/PA 11-08-06 with signature; (g) one plastic sachet with suspected shabu residue with marking EXH. 'F' ABK/PA 11/08/06 signed by APO1 Carlito L. Vita, the team leader of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Force but not as to the source; (B) that the request for examination was delivered by PO1 Aure, recorded by PO1 De Jesus and received by PSI Cejes; (C) pursuant to the said request, PSI Cejes conducted a qualitative examination on the above-stated specimens A to E and H and gave positive result to the tests for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride (sic), a dangerous drug; (D) the result of said examination was reduced into writing as evidence of Physical Science Report No. D-547-06E but not as to the source; (E) the regularity and due execution of said document. 43
Verily, the various procedural lapses committed by the law enforcers herein, which were left unacknowledged and unexplained, could not be considered minor, and thus, militate against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the accused-appellants. 44 Indeed, establishing every link in the chain of custody is crucial to the preservation of the integrity, identity, and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drug. Thus, for the failure of the apprehending officers to demonstrate compliance with the first and fourth links of the chain or to provide any justifiable reason for their deviations thereof, a reasonable doubt exists as to the integrity and evidentiary value of the items confiscated from the accused-appellants, 45 thereby warranting their acquittal. ETHIDa
WHEREFORE, the appeal of accused-appellants Longpi Bagul y Kulaw, Ali Bagul y Kulaw, and Kamal Bagul y Kulaw are GRANTED. The Decision dated October 22, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04879 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, they are ACQUITTED of the crimes charged.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ORDERED to: (a) cause their immediate release unless they are being held in custody for any other lawful reason; and (b) inform the Court of the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED." (Gaerlan, J., no part due to prior action in the CA; Zalameda, J., designated additional member per Raffle dated August 2, 2021; Rosario, J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2835 dated July 15, 2021).
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See Notice of Appeal dated November 9, 2012; rollo, pp. 21-22.
2.Id. at 2-20. Penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang (now a member of the Court) with Associate Justices Samuel H. Gaerlan (now a member of the Court) and Agnes Reyes-Carpio, concurring.
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 on June 7, 2002.
4.Rollo, p. 3.
5.Id. at 3-4.
6.Id. at 5.
7.Id. at 4.
8.Id.
9. Also referred to as P/Sr. Insp. Lourdeliza Gural-Cejes in other parts of the rollo.
10. Full name not indicated in rollo.
11.Rollo, pp. 5-9. See also Physical Sciences Report No. D-547-06E; records, p. 89.
12. Records, pp. 14-15.
13.Id.
14.Rollo, pp. 9-11.
15. CA rollo, pp. 24-34. Penned by Judge Librado S. Correa.
16.Id. at 33-34.
17.Id. at 32.
18.Rollo, pp. 13-19.
19. See People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 225 (2015).
20.People v. Comboy, 782 Phil. 187, 196 (2016).
21. See People v. De Dios, G.R. No. 243664, January 22, 2020.
22.People v. Ching, 819 Phil. 565, 576 (2017); citation omitted.
23.Id. at 576; citation omitted.
24. 769 Phil. 872 (2015).
25.Id. at 886-887.
26. 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.
27. See Section 21 of RA 9165, Section 21 of the IRR, and Section 1 of RA 10640.
28. See People v. Mamalumpon, 767 Phil. 845, 855 (2015), citing Imson v. People, 669 Phil. 262, 271 (2011). See also People v. Ocfemia, 718 Phil. 330, 348 (2013), citing People v. Resurreccion, 618 Phil. 520, 532 (2009).
29. 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), RA 10640 was approved on July 15, 2014. Under Section 5 thereof, it shall 'take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation.' RA 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, RA 10640 appears to have become effective on August 7, 2014.
30. Section 21 (1) and (2), Article II of RA 9165; emphasis and underscoring supplied.
31. Which falls under the DOJ. (See Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1275, entitled 'REORGANIZING THE PROSECUTION STAFF OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE OFFICES OF THE PROVINCIAL AND CITY FISCALS, REGIONALIZING THE PROSECUTION SERVICE, AND CREATING THE NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE' [April 11, 1978] and Section 3 of RA 10071, entitled 'AN ACT STRENGTHENING AND RATIONALIZING THE NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE' otherwise known as the 'PROSECUTION SERVICE ACT OF 2010' [lapsed into law on April 8, 2010]).
32. Section 21 (1), Article II of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640; emphasis and underscoring supplied.
33. See People v. Bangalan, G.R. No. 232249, September 3, 2018. See also People v. Miranda, 824 Phil. 1042, 1051 (2018); and People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749, 761 (2014).
34. See People v. Miranda, id. at 1059. See also People v. Macapundag, 807 Phil. 234, 244 (2017), citing People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024, 1038 (2012).
35. See People v. Segundo, 814 Phil. 697, 722 (2017), citing People v. Umipang, id.
36. See People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 234 (2008).
37. See People v. Almorfe, 631 Phil. 51, 60 (2010).
38. Section 1 of RA 10640 pertinently states: '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.'
39.People v. Almorfe, supra note 37.
40.People v. De Guzman, 630 Phil. 637, 649 (2010).
41. See People v. Morales, 630 Phil. 215, 235 (2010); People v. Garcia, 599 Phil. 416, 434 (2009); Bondad, Jr. v. People, 594 Phil. 158 (2008); People v. Gutierrez, 614 Phil. 285, 297-298 (2009); and People v. Denoman, 612 Phil. 1165, 1177 (2009).
42. See People v. Leaño, G.R. No. 246461, July 28, 2020; citation omitted.
43. CA rollo, p. 27.
44. See People v. Mamangon, 824 Phil. 728, 741 (2018).
45. See People v. Ubungen, 836 Phil. 888, 902 (2018).