FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 251005. June 16, 2021.]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.NOEL BAÑEZ y ABULENCIA @ "WENG'', accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 16, 2021 which read as follows:
"G.R. No. 251005 (The People of the Philippines v. Noel Bañez y Abulencia @ "Weng''). — This is an Appeal 1 from the Decision 2 dated May 27, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09731, affirming the Decision dated June 1, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lingayen Pangasinan, Branch 37, finding accused-appellant Noel Bañez y Abulencia @ "Weng" guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165 in Criminal Case No. L-10072 and for violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 in Criminal Case No. L-10073.
Antecedents
Charges were filed against accused-appellant Noel Bañez y Abulencia @ "Weng" (Bañez) for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002." The Informations read as follows:
Criminal Case No. L-10072
That on or about 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon of May 7, 2014 in Brgy. Basing, Binmaley, Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally sell for PHP500.00 one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) weighing 0.112 to [PO1] Antonio T. Tadeo, Jr., who acted as poseur-buyer, without any authority or license to sell the same.
Contrary to Section 5, Article II of RA No. 9165.3 (Emphasis supplied)
Criminal Case No. L-10073
That on or about 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon of May 7, 2014 in Brgy. Basing, Binmaley, Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, control and custody two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) weighing 0.098 and 0.069 without authority or license to possess the same.
Contrary to Section 11, Article II of RA No. 9165.4 (Emphasis supplied)
Bañez pleaded not guilty for both charges. Trial on the merits ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
On November 26, 2013, the Binmaley Police Station received a report from a confidential informant that Bañez is one of the notorious peddlers of dangerous drugs in Barangay (Brgy.) Basing, Binmaley, Pangasinan. 5 On November 28, 2013, a test-buy was conducted by the confidential informant and PO1 Antonio T. Tadeo (PO1 Tadeo) wherein they were able to buy from him one plastic sachet containing suspected shabu. 6 Per Chemistry Report No. D-238-2013, the specimen tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. 7
On May 7, 2014, a team lead by Police Inspector Apollo Calimlim (P/Ins. Calimlim) conducted a buy-bust operation. PO1 Tadeo was the designated poseur-buyer while SPO1 Froilan F. Perez (SPO1 Perez) served as back-up. PO1 Tadeo was provided with one dusted P500.00-bill with the marking "ATT" as buy-bust money. 8 Coordination was also made with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). 9 At 4:50 p.m. of May 7, 2014, the buy-bust team proceeded to Brgy. Basing, Binmaley, Pangasinan. The confidential informant arrived and then accompanied PO1 Tadeo. Meanwhile, the other members of the buy-bust team positioned themselves within the vicinity. Bañez was spotted standing beside a bicycle on an alley. PO1 Tadeo, together with the confidential informant, approached Bañez and had a brief conversation with him. Later on, PO1 Tadeo whispered to Bañez "Mangaliw kami" (We will buy). "Wala pigara sa alaen yo" (There is, how much will you get?), Bañez replied. PO1 Tadeo handed Bañez the P500.00 buy-bust money. In exchange, Bañez gave to PO1 Tadeo a Commando match box containing one heat-sealed plastic sachet with white crystalline substance inside. Thereafter, PO1 Tadeo scratched his nape, the pre-arranged signal for the consummation of the illegal sale of shabu. Immediately, SPO1 Perez and the other members of the buy-bust team rushed to the scene to assist PO1 Tadeo in arresting Bañez. PO1 Tadeo introduced himself as a police officer and then informed Bañez of his Constitutional rights. Then, he asked Bañez to empty his pocket, yielding two more plastic sachets wrapped in a small piece of paper, the buy-bust money, and a cellular phone. All these were confiscated including the bicycle held by Bañez. 10
PO1 Tadeo marked the plastic sachet subject of the buy-bust operation with his initials "ATT." The two plastic sachets confiscated from Bañez were marked with "ATT1" and "ATT2." After marking, PO1 Tadeo conducted an inventory of the seized items. The marking and inventory was done at the place of confiscation and in the presence of the following: (1) Bañez; (2) Brgy. Kagawad Nelson S. Lopez; (3) Brgy. Kagawad Rio L. Ballesteros; (4) Prosecutor Jeffrey Catungal, as representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ); (5) media representative Violy Valdez Ferrer of Aksyon Radio; and (6) Elma A. Bañez, wife of accused-appellant Bañez. Photographs were also taken. 11
After preparing a Request for Laboratory Examination, 12 PO1 Tadeo brought the plastic sachets to the Pangasinan Provincial Crime Laboratory and turned them over to Forensic Chemist Police Chief Inspector Myrna C. Malojo Tadeño (Forensic Chemist Tadeño) for qualitative examination. Per Chemistry Report No. D-205-2014L issued by Forensic Chemist Tadeño, the plastic sachets marked "ATT," "ATT1," and "ATT2" tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu. Forensic Chemist Tadeño placed the markings "D-205-2014L MCMT" on each of the plastic sachets to signify the corresponding chemistry report and her initials. 13 The specimen were then kept in an improvised envelope (Exhibit "I"). Forensic Chemist Tadeño identified in court the seized items and the improvised envelope containing them. 14
Version of the Defense
Bañez interposed the defense of denial and frame-up. According to him, he was merely testing his bicycle at around 4:00 p.m. of May 7, 2014 when he was met by a car and a motorcycle coming from opposite directions and blocked his way out. One of the motorcycle riders held his hand and the handle of his bicycle, and then introduced himself as a police officer. Bañez was placed in handcuffs and ordered to lie down facing the ground. Other police officers, including PO1 Tadeo, arrived in a car. He was ordered to stand and then frisked. Three pieces of plastic sachets were shown to him. Bañez was then asked to point at the three plastic sachets laid down on the plant box while photos were being taken. He was placed again in handcuffs and subsequently brought to the police station. 15
Bañez explained that the place of arrest is inhabited and there are no other persons to help him. 16 He also filed a Motion for Release of Bicycle alleging that the confiscated bicycle was not his but is actually owned by his younger brother, John Bañez. 17
On March 28, 2017, before the RTC rendered its Decision, Bañez was transferred to the New Bilibid Prison for having been convicted in another case of unauthorized sale of illegal drugs before the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City, Branch 40. 18
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On June 1, 2017, the RTC convicted Bañez as charged, thus:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused NOEL BAÑEZ y ABULENCIA @ "WENG" GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA No. 9165 as amended, accused is hereby sentenced as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. L-10072 accused is sentence[d] to suffer the indeterminate penalty from twenty (20) years as MINIMUM to twenty-five (25) years as MAXIMUM and to pay the fine of five hundred thousand pesos (Php500,000.00);
2. In Criminal Case No. L-10073 accused is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years as MINIMUM to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months as MAXIMUM and to pay a fine of three hundred thousand (Php300,000.00) pesos;
3. To pay the costs of these suits.
Accused's period of detention in jail from 08 May 2014 to the date of this Decision shall be credited to him in the service of his sentence.
SO ORDERED.19 (Emphasis in the original)
In convicting Bañez, the trial court upheld the validity of the buy-bust operation especially since the confidential report was verified through a test-buy operation. 20 The prosecution established that the requirements under Section 21 of R.A. 9165 were satisfied. The integrity and identity of the seized items were preserved and the chain of custody remained unbroken. The RTC did not give merit to Bañez' claim of frame-up for being inherently week. By filing a Motion for Release of Bicycle allegedly owned by his brother, Bañez belied his own testimony claiming he was merely testing his bicycle when he was arrested by the police officers. 21
Aggrieved, Bañez appealed to the CA.
Bañez raised doubts in PO1 Tadeo's testimony for being inconsistent. PO1 Tadeo allegedly testified that he had no prior transaction with Bañez, contrary to the claim that there was a test-buy operation on November 28, 2013. Bañez also questions how the police officers were able to predict that he would be selling a sachet of shabu worth P500.00 when they did not have a prior arrangement with him as to how much drugs they intended to buy. On the other hand, even assuming that there was a test-buy on November 28, 2013, the buy-bust operation was not immediately conducted thereafter. The prosecution did not offer any explanation why the buy-bust operation transpired only on May 7, 2014, nearly six months after the test-buy. 22 Lastly, the defense argued that the seizing officers failed to immediately mark the confiscated items, thereby creating the possibility of mix-up. 23
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
On May 27, 2019, the CA dismissed the appeal filed by Bañez, finding no reason to depart from the findings of the trial court. The appellate court ruled that Bañez was validly arrested in flagrante delicto during the buy-bust operation, giving weight and credence to the testimony of PO1 Tadeo, who categorically affirmed that he successfully purchased illegal drugs from Bañez and further confiscated two more sachets of shabu from him during the buy-bust operation. 24 The alleged inconsistencies in PO1 Tadeo's testimony is baseless. PO1 Tadeo explained the proper conduct of the test-buy and nowhere in his testimony did he say that he had no prior transaction with Bañez. 25
The marking, physical inventory and photograph of the seized items were immediately conducted in the very same place where the drugs were confiscated. 26 These procedures required under Section 21 of R.A. 9165 were all safely made in the Presence of Bañez, Brgy. Kagawad Nelson S. Lopez, Brgy. Kagawad Rio L. Ballesteros and media representative Violy Valdez Ferrer of Aksyon Radio, as well as Bañez wife, Elma A. Bañez. 27
Pursuant to Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 which provides that the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00 shall be imposed for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the CA modified the penalty imposed by the RTC in Criminal Case No. L-10072, disposing the case at follows:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED and the assailed June 1, 2017 Decision of Branch 37 of the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan is AFFIRMED with the lone MODIFICATION that in Criminal Case No. L-10072, the penalty imposed upon accused-appellant is increased to life imprisonment.
SO ORDERED.28 (Emphasis in the original)
Bañez filed an appeal. The parties adopted their respective Appellant's 29 and Appellee's 30 Briefs filed before the CA as their supplemental briefs before the Court.
Ruling of the Court
The Court resolves to grant the appeal.
This Court is guided by the important legal precept that in every criminal case where the accused enjoys the presumption of innocence, he is entitled to acquittal unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. 31 The overriding consideration is not whether the Court doubts the innocence of the accused but whether it entertains a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. If there exist even one iota of doubt, this Court is under a long standing legal injunction to resolve the doubt in favor of the accused. 32
In cases involving dangerous drugs, as in this case of Bañez, doubts usually arise from two factors: whether or not a buy-bust operation actually took place as when the accused vehemently denies the same, 33 or from the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti which is the dangerous drug itself. It is worthy to emphasize that the State carries the heavy burden of proving not only the elements of the offense, but also in proving the integrity of the corpus delicti in the prosecution for the Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under R.A. 9165. 34
Primarily, the defense casts doubt on the May 7, 2014 buy-bust operation because it was conducted nearly six months after the November 28, 2013 test-buy, and not immediately thereafter. This contention has no merit.
Prior surveillance, whether or not conducted immediately before the buy-bust operation, is not a prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment or a buy-bust operation. 35 There is no rigid or textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations. 36 The Court has left to the discretion of police authorities the selection of effective means to apprehend drug dealers. 37 Besides, far from being dubious, sufficient evidence was presented on the conduct of the November 28, 2013 test-buy operation against Bañez, namely: (1) Binmaley Police Station Information Report (Exhibit "D"); 38 (2) Request for Laboratory Examination (Exhibit "J"); 39 and (3) Chemistry Report No. D-238-2013L (Exhibit "K"). 40
Nonetheless, the doubt lies on the identity of the dangerous drug allegedly seized from Bañez during the May 7, 2014 buy-bust operation.
R.A. 9165 provides reasonable safeguards to preserve the identity and integrity of narcotic substances and dangerous drugs seized and/or recovered from drug offenders. 41 Section 21, Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. 9165 clearly outlines the post-seizure procedure in taking custody of seized drugs. Proper procedures to account for each specimen by tracking its handling and storage from point of seizure to presentation of the evidence in court and its final disposal must be observed. Strict compliance with the chain of custody rule is essential in order for the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Immediately after seizure and confiscation, the apprehending team is required to conduct a physical inventory and to photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as the number of witnesses required, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of R.A. 9165 by R.A. 10640 on July 23, 2014, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official; or (b) if after the amendment of R.A. 9165 by R.A. 10640, an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media. 42
The phrase "immediately after seizure and confiscation" means that the physical inventory and photographing of the drugs were intended by the law to be made immediately after, or at the place of apprehension. It is only when the same is not practicable that the IRR of R.A. 9165 allow the inventory and photographing to be done as soon as the buy-bust team reaches the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team. In this connection, this also means that the required witnesses should already be physically present at the time of the apprehension — a requirement that can be easily complied with by the buy-bust team considering that the buy-bust operation is, by its nature, a planned activity. 43 To restate, the presence of the required witnesses at the time of seizure and confiscation of the drugs must be secured and complied with at the time of the warrantless arrest; such that they are required to be at or near the intended place of arrest so that they can be ready to witness the inventory and photographing of the seized and confiscated drugs "immediately after seizure and confiscation." 44
Bañez was arrested on May 7, 2014, prior to the effectivity of R.A. 10640. The witnesses required in this case are: (1) a representative from the media; (2) a DOJ representative; and (3) any elected public official. The Confiscation Receipt 45 (Exhibit "G") was accordingly signed by all the required witnesses, namely: (a) Brgy. Kagawad Nelson S. Lopez and Brgy. Kagawad Rio L. Ballesteros; (b) media representative Violy Valdez Ferrer of Aksyon Radio; and (c) DOJ representative Prosecutor Jeffrey Catungal.
Photographs were taken at the place of arrest by SPO1 Perez. While none of the required witnesses testified in court, the particular incidents shown in each photograph were narrated by PO1 Tadeo, to wit:
PROS. CAMPOS:
Q Were there photographs taken at the scene of the incident, Mr. Witness, particularly when you were marking the (sic) evidence, as well as when the confiscation receipt was being prepared, and witnessed by the witnesses you mentioned?
A Yes, sir.
Q Who took those pictures?
A SPO2 Froilan Perez, sir.
Q Was he with you or was he a part of the team that conducted the police buy-bust operation against the accused?
A Yes, sir.
Q Showing to you Exhibits "I", "I-1" up to " I-22". Will you please tell us if these are the pictures or photographs taken at the scene of the incident?
A Yes, sir.
Q This Exhibit "I", what does it reflect, Mr. Witness?
A The signing of the Confiscation Receipt by Fiscal Catungal, sir.
A About Exhibit "I-1"?
Q When he was taking a look at the evidence, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q Exhibit "I-8"?
A The signing by the wife of the accused, sir.
Q Of the Confiscation Receipt?
A Yes, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q About Exhibit "I-11"?
A When we placed on record, sir. When we recorded the marking, sir.
Q So, Exhibits "I-11", "I-12", "I-13" and "I-14" are pictures taken when you were marking the (sic) pieces of evidence?
A Yes, sir.
Q In the presence of the said witnesses?
A Yes, sir.
Q How about Exhibits "I-15" and "I-16"?
A The same, sir. 46 (Emphasis supplied)
As shown in the photographs and corroborated by PO1 Tadeo's testimony, all three required witnesses were present during documentation, or the marking and inventory of the seized items.
Meanwhile, it is gathered from the records that the required witnesses were merely "called in" for the marking and inventory. Police Blotter Entry No. 1199 reads as follows:
Entry No. 1199Date: May 7, 2014Time: 6:00 PM
In relation to entry no. 1198 of this record book, PNP elements of this station returned station and brought the suspect identified as NOEL ABULENCIA BAÑEZ, 47 years old, married and a resident of Basing, Binmaley, Pangasinan after he was arrested in buy-bust operation wherein PO1 Antonio T. Tadeo acted as poseur-buyer. x x x. Suspect was appraised of his Constitutional rights and in the presence of Brgy. Kagawad Nelson of Brgy. Lopez and Brgy. Kagawad Rio Ballesteros Basing this town, Prosecutor Jeffrey Catungal, Media Reporter Violy Valdez Ferrer of Aksyon Radio. (Emphasis supplied)
Likewise, the Joint Affidavit of Arrest states:
That said buy-bust operation was conducted in the presence of Brgy. Kagawad Nelson S. Lopez, Brgy. Kagawad Rio L. Ballesteros, Prosecutor Jeffrey Catungal, and Media Reporter from Aksyon Radyo Pangasinan Violy Valdez Ferrer and then subsequently submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory Service in Lingayen, Pangasinan for laboratory examination; and that we likewise brought the arrested suspect at the said Office for drug test/examination. 47
During PO1 Tadeo's narration of the incidents prior to the buy-bust operation and arrest of Bañez, however, he did not mention that the witnesses went with the buy-bust team to Brgy. Basing, Binmaley, Pangasinan, or the place of arrest, to wit:
PROS. CAMPOS:
Q Aside from the coordination by your office with the PDEA and the preparation of the marked money, what else did you do?
A We coordinated with the DOJ representative, Atty. Jeffrey Catungal, and the barangay officials of Basing, sir.
Q Did these personalities come over?
A Yes, sir.
Q By the way, where did you conduct the police buy-bust operation?
A In Barangay Basing, Binmaley, Pangasinan, sir.
Q Who were with you when you conducted that police buy-bust operation and who went with you in going to Barangay Basing, Binmaley, Pangasinan?
A The Team Intel of the Binmaley Police Station and uniformed officer after we arrested the accused, sir.48 (Emphasis supplied)
Moreover, when asked at what point of the buy-bust operation were the required witnesses called, PO1 Tadeo testified as follows:
PROS. CAMPOS:
Q And after he handed to you the said items, what happened next?
A I signalled my back-up, sir.
Q And when you made your signal, what transpired next?
A I signalled my back-up to help me to arrest, they came and I held the accused and my back-up helped me in stating the nature of the arrest, sir.
Q After doing that, Mr. Witness, what happened next?
A We called representatives to witness the illegal transaction, sir.
COURT:
Q You mean you called up the DOJ representative and that of the PDEA and media to witness the documentation?
A Yes, Your Honor.
xxx xxx xxx 49 (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, the prosecution failed to clearly establish that all three required witnesses were present specifically during the warrantless arrest of Bañez. Again, it is at this point in which the presence of the three witnesses is most needed, as it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug. 50
Subsequent to the marking and inventory at the place of arrest, the buy-bust team together with the accused proceeded to the Binmaley Police Station where the Police Blotter 51 (Exhibit "H") and Request for Laboratory Examination 52 (Exhibit "E") were prepared. The Request for Laboratory Examination was dated May 7, 2014, or the same day as the buy-bust operation. At 7:40 PM of even date, the Request for Laboratory Examination and the seized items were personally delivered by PO1 Tadeo to Forensic Chemist Tadeño of the Pangasinan Provincial Crime Laboratory.
Forensic Chemist Tadeño confirmed that the white crystalline substance inside the three plastic sachets seized from Bañez was positive for shabu. After quantitative and qualitative examination, Forensic Chemist Tadeño placed her own markings on each of the three plastic sachets and kept them in an improvised envelope. She was also able to present and identify during trial the improvised envelope which, when opened, contained three plastic sachets with her markings and that of PO1 Tadeo. 53 Nevertheless, Forensic Chemist Tadeño did not mention during her testimony whether the seized items were later on handed to an evidence custodian for safekeeping, or if anyone else had access to the improvised envelope or place where the improvised envelope was kept. Hence, the Court has no basis to conclude that the three plastic sachets delivered by PO1 Tadeo and then subjected by Forensic Chemist Tadeño to laboratory examination were the same plastic sachets presented by the latter to the court.
The lapses of the prosecution in proving: (1) the presence of the witnesses at the time of the warrantless arrest; and (2) the whereabouts of the seized items after laboratory examination until presentation in court, created gaps in the chain of custody. From the foregoing, the Court is constrained to rule that the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti has been compromised due to a broken chain of custody. The Court, therefore, has no moral certainty to pronounce the guilt of Bañez for Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. 9165.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated May 27, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09731 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Noel Bañez y Abulencia @ "Weng" is hereby ACQUITTED:
1) In Criminal Case No. L-10072 for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165; and
2) In Criminal Case No. L-10073 for violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
Accused-appellant Noel Bañez y Abulencia @ "Weng" is ORDERED to be IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from custody, unless he is being held for another lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation, who is also DIRECTED to report to this Court the action he has taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
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, p. 147.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario (now a Member of this Court), with the concurrence of Associate Justices Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela and Perpetua T. Atal-Paño; rollo, pp. 3-14.
3. Records (Crim. Case No. L-10072), p. 1.
4. Records (Crim. Case No. L-10073), p. 1.
5. CA rollo, p. 65.
6. TSN dated November 17, 2015, p. 3.
7.Id.
8. CA rollo, p. 20.
9. Records (Crim. Case No. L-10073), p. 7.
10. CA rollo, pp. 19-20.
11. Records (Crim. Case No. L-10073), pp. 6, 14.
12.Id. at 13.
13. TSN dated April 30, 2015, p. 8.
14. TSN dated March 1, 2017, p. 3.
15. CA rollo, p. 68.
16.Id.
17.Rollo, p. 7.
18. Records (Crim. Case No. L-10073), pp. 109-112.
19. CA rollo, pp. 73-74.
20.Id. at 70.
21.Id. at 71-72.
22.Id. at 53-54.
23.Id. at 58-59.
24.Rollo, p. 9.
25.Id. at 9-10.
26.Id. at 12.
27.Id.
28. CA rollo, p. 14.
29.Id. at 47-62.
30.Id. at 88-101.
31.People v. Globa, G.R. No. 241251, December 10, 2019.
32.People v. Cruz, 736 Phil. 564, 580 (2014).
33.People v. Globa, G.R. No. 241251, December 10, 2019.
34.People v. Banlaygas, G.R. No. 246581, September 9, 2020.
35.People v. Eugenio, 443 Phil. 411, 423 (2003).
36.Quinicot v. People, 608 Phil. 259, 274 (2009).
37.Id.
38. Records (Crim. Case No. L-10073), p. 9.
39.Id. at 11.
40.Id. at 12.
41.Cariño v. People, 600 Phil. 433, 448 (2009).
42. See Dimaala v. People, G.R. No. 242315, July 3, 2019.
43.People v. Malana, G.R. No. 233747, December 5, 2018.
44.People v. Dumanjug, G.R. No. 235468, July 1, 2019.
45. Records (Crim. Case No. L-10073), p. 14.
46. TSN dated November 17, 2015, pp. 10-11.
47.Id. at 6.
48.Id. at 5.
49.Id. at 6-7.
50.People v. Tomawis, 830 Phil. 385, 409 (2018).
51. Records (Crim. Case No. L-10073), p. 14.
52.Id. at 13.
53. TSN dated March 1, 2017, p. 3.