SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252699. November 15, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.EDWIN BASCO y APODACA A.K.A. "EDWIN", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 15 November 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252699 (People of the Philippines v. Edwin Basco y Apodaca a.k.a. "Edwin"). — On appeal 1 is the January 16, 2020 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09975, affirming the September 22, 2017 Joint Judgment 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Legazpi City, Branch 6, in Criminal Case Nos. 13725 and 13726, finding accused-appellant Edwin Basco y Apodaca (Basco) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Sale and Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, 4 respectively.
In Criminal Case No. 13725, Basco was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 allegedly committed as follows:
That on June 6, 2016 at about 8 o'clock in the evening at Purok 1, Brgy. Tagas, Municipality of Daraga, Province of Albay, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell 1.872 gram n of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or commonly known as ''Shabu" to a poseur-buyer in the amount of Five thousand five hundred (Php5,500.00) Pesos, to the damage and prejudice of public interest.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
In Criminal Case No. 13726, Basco was charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 allegedly committed as follows:
That on June 6, 2016 at about 8 o'clock in the evening at Purok 1, Brgy. Tagas, Municipality of Daraga, Province of Albay, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession and control Two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or commonly known as "Shabu'' a dangerous drug, with a total weight of 0.348 grams (sic) without the necessary authority to possess the same, to the damage and prejudice of the public welfare.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
Version of the Prosecution:
The prosecution presented the following witnesses: Police Officer 3 (PO3) Jayson Cepeda (PO3 Cepeda), Senior Police Officer (SPO) 1 Joven L. Osurman (SPO1 Osurman), Police Chief Inspector (PCI) Saguisag L. Miras (PCI Miras), PO3 Angelo Villanueva (PO3 Villanueva), PCI Wilfredo I. Pabustan, Jr. (PCI Pabustan), Kagawad Myrna Sevilla (Kagawad Sevilla) and media representative Josefino Dioquino (Dioquino). 7
PO3 Cepeda testified that on June 6, 2016, PCI Miras of the Albay Criminal and Detection Unit received information from their confidential informant (CI) about Basco's involvement in the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. Acting thereon, PCI Miras immediately formed a buy-bust team with PO3 Cepeda as poseur-buyer and SPO1 Osurman as the arresting officer. The rest of the team would serve as security back up. The team prepared a genuine P500.00 bill and five photocopied P1,000.00 bills as buy-bust money. The CI and Basco agreed to meet at a waiting shed in Purok 1, Barangay Tagas, Daraga, Albay. 8
Meanwhile, PO3 Cepeda and the CI coordinated the entrapment operation with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Regional Office through Coordination Form 9 and Pre-Operation Report 10 both dated June 6, 2016. Upon receipt of the approved Certificate of Coordination 11 from the PDEA, PO3 Cepeda and the CI proceeded to the target area on board a tricycle arriving thereat at around 7:30 p.m. of the same day. The other members of the buy-bust team positioned themselves about three meters away from the waiting shed.
The CI introduced PO3 Cepeda to Basco as the person who wanted to buy P5,500.00 worth of shabu. After the introduction, Basco took out three pieces of transparent plastic sachets from his pocket and gave the biggest packet to PO3 Cepeda who, in turn, gave him the boodle money. Thereupon, PO3 Cepeda scratched his head to signal that the sale had been consummated. Thus, the other team members rushed to the waiting shed to assist PO3 Cepeda in arresting accused-appellant.
At this juncture, PO3 Cepeda introduced himself as a police officer and arrested Basco while informing him of his constitutional rights. PCI Miras procured the attendance of a public official and representatives of the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to witness the marking and inventory of the seized items. However, a DOJ representative was not available at that time. Upon the arrival of Kagawad Sevilla and media representative Dioquino at the place of arrest, SPO1 Osurman conducted a body search upon Basco. SPO1 Osurman found two more plastic sachets containing white crystalline substances suspected to be shabu from the right front pocket of Basco's maong jeans. 12 PO3 Cepeda then marked the plastic sachet he bought from Basco with "JDC1 6-6-16" while SPO1 Osurman simultaneously marked the two other sachets he found in Basco's possession with "JLO-1 6-6-16" and "JLO-2 6-6-16" in the presence of Basco, Kagawad Sevilla and media representative Dioquino.
PO3 Cepeda and SPO1 Osurman then accomplished separate Certificates of Inventory of Properties Seized 13 in front of Basco, Kagawad Sevilla and media representative Dioquino, who both signed the said certificates. Pictures of Basco and the evidence seized together with the witnesses were also taken during the inventory. 14
After the arrest, the team brought Basco to the CIDG Albay Office for documentation. Requests for Laboratory Examination 15 of the drug specimens were prepared. PO3 Cepeda and SPO1 Osurman delivered the requests and the seized evidence to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory. They were received by PO3 Villanueva and were turned over to PCI Pabustan, who examined the subject specimens. The laboratory examination conducted by PCI Pabustan showed that the white crystalline substance subject of the sale as well as those found in the possession of Basco yielded a positive result for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a prohibited drug as per Chemistry Report Nos. D-331-2016 16 and D-332-2016, 17 respectively. Thereafter, PCI Pabustan turned over the specimens to PO3 Maribel Bagato (PO3 Bagato), the evidence custodian, for safekeeping. 18
Version of the Defense:
Only Basco testified for the defense. He denied the charges against him and interposed the defenses of denial and frame-up.
He alleged that on June 6, 2016, while he was at the waiting shed, a man alighted from a red car and poked a gun at him. The armed man handcuffed Basco and accused him of being a drug pusher. Thereafter, another man suddenly showed up and started punching and cursing Basco. Basco later identified the man who poked a gun at him as PO3 Cepeda while the person who punched him and allegedly found illegal drugs in his possession as SPO1 Osurman. 19
According to Basco, SPO1 Osurman was the one who placed the sachets of shabu inside his pocket. SPO1 Osurman thereafter summoned witnesses from the barangay and media and then falsely represented to them that the seized sachets were recovered from Basco's possession. 20
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
Finding the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses to have established all the elements of the crimes charged, the trial court ruled against Basco in its Joint Judgment 21 dated September 22, 2017. The trial court noted that the police officers positively identified Basco as the person who sold one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet to PO3 Cepeda in exchange for the buy-bust money. The prosecution also established that during the body search conducted upon Basco, SPO1 Osurman found two more plastic sachets of shabu. Finally, the RTC found an unbroken chain of custody of the seized items.
The decretal portion of the RTC's Joint Judgment reads:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing ratiocinations, the accused-Edwin Basco y Apodaca is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 or Selling of Illegal Drugs and Violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 or for Illegal Possession of 0.348 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu. Accordingly, the accused-Edwin Basco y Apodaca is hereby meted out the following penalties, to wit:
1. In Criminal Case No. 13725, accused-Edwin Basco y Apodaca is sentenced to LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a FINE of Php500,000.00;
2. In Criminal Case No. 13726, accused-Edwin Basco y Apodaca is sentenced to an indeterminate imprisonment of TWELVE YEARS (12)andONE (1) DAY as MINIMUM to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS as MAXIMUM and to pay a FINE of Php300,000.00.
The three (3) drug specimens in these cases are confiscated in favor of the government but to be destroyed upon motion of the public prosecutor pursuant to Section 21, paragraph 7 of R.A. 9165.
Finally, the Branch Clerk of Court is directed to issue the MITIMUS for the commitment and confinement of the accused — Edwin Basco y Apocada n to the National Penitentiary, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City.
SO ORDERED. 22
Aggrieved, Basco appealed 23 before the CA raising the following errors, to wit:
I.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE OFFENSES CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE THE VALIDITY OF THE ALLEGED BUY-BUST OPERATION.
II.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE OFFENSES CHARGED DESPITE THE POLICE OFFICERS' NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE. 24
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
The CA, in its assailed Decision 25 dated January 16, 2020, affirmed the RTC's ruling that found Basco guilty of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs. The appellate court held that the prosecution evidence sufficiently established the existence of a valid buy-bust operation. The prosecution witnesses gave a detailed account of the sale transaction and the subsequent search conducted on Basco that yielded two more sachets of shabu. The appellate court was likewise convinced that the apprehending officers duly complied with the chain of custody rule in dangerous drugs cases. 26
Dissatisfied with the CA's Decision, Basco filed a notice of appeal 27 before this Court.
Issue
The issue in this case is whether Basco is guilty of Illegal Sale and Possession of shabu.
Basco contends that it is doubtful whether a valid buy-bust operation was conducted since the prosecution failed to satisfy the objective test laid down in People v. Doria. 28 The defense avers that it was improbable for Basco to peddle illegal drugs in a public place where people could easily see and identify him. Further, the defense submits that it is foolhardy for a drug dealer to boldly and unabashedly display his wares to a total stranger such as PO3 Cepeda. In short, the defense claims that the prosecution failed to establish the validity of the alleged buy-bust operation. Consequently, the illegal drugs supposedly recovered from Basco should be held inadmissible in evidence against him. 29
Basco further argues that his guilt had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt because the prosecution failed to demonstrate that the apprehending officers complied with the safeguards for the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items under the Chain of Custody Rule. 30
In sum, the defense insists that Basco's acquittal is warranted on account of the prosecution's failure to prove the existence of a valid buy-bust operation and to establish compliance with the chain of custody requirement in dangerous drugs cases. 31
Our Ruling
There is no merit in the appeal.
Validity of the buy-bust operation.
Basco's contention that it was contrary to human experience for one to engage in the sale of illegal drugs with a stranger and in a public place deserves scant consideration.
We have long observed that "peddlers of illicit drugs have been known, with ever-increasing casualness and recklessness, to offer and sell for the right price their wares to anybody, be they strangers or not. The fact that the parties are in a public place and in the presence of other people may not always discourage them from pursuing their illegal trade as these factors may even serve to camouflage the same." 32 ''Moreover, drug pushing when done on a small-scale, like the instant case, belongs to those types of crimes that may be committed any time and at any place." 33
In addition, records show that prior to the conduct of the buy-bust operation, PO3 Cepeda coordinated with the PDEA as evidenced by the pre-operation report 34 and coordination form 35 both dated June 6, 2016. In turn, the buy-bust team received a certificate of coordination 36 signed by the regional director of PDEA certifying the coordination of the buy-bust team with the Anti-Illegal Drug Operation against Basco on June 6, 2016. The foregoing pieces of evidence militate against Basco's claim that no valid buy-bust operation took place in the instant case. Therefore, the seized plastic sachets were admissible in evidence.
The elements of the crimes
The following elements must be proved for a successful prosecution of a charge for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, to wit: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 37
On the other hand, the elements of the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs are: (1) the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of dangerous drugs. 38
In this case, all the elements of the crimes of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs were clearly proven through the credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. PO3 Cepeda testified that he was introduced by the CI to Basco as the person interested in buying drugs. PO3 Cepeda then positively identified Basco as the same person who sold to him P5,500.00 worth of shabu in exchange for the buy-bust money. Upon the consummation of the sale, the other members of the buy-bust team responded to the pre-arranged signal of PO3 Cepeda and thereupon, SPO1 Osurman frisked Basco. SPO1 Osurman recovered the boodle money from Basco's right hand and found two more heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance from the right front pocket of Basco's maong jeans. After a qualitative examination, the contents of the plastic sachet subject of the sale together with those found in Basco's possession tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
The chain of custody was
Inasmuch as the dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of both offenses, its identity and integrity must definitely be shown to have been preserved. This means that on top of the elements of Possession or Illegal Sale, it must likewise be established with the same exacting degree of certitude as that required in sustaining a conviction, that the substance possessed or illegally sold was the same substance presented in court. 39
To ensure the integrity of the seized drugs, the prosecution must account for each link in the chain of custody. "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 from the forensic chemist to the court." 40
In this case, Basco maintains that there was failure on the part of the buy-bust team to strictly comply with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165.·First, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses made no mention about the turnover of the seized drugs to the investigating officer. Instead, the apprehending officers were also the same persons who conducted the marking and inventory of the items that they seized, hence, the breach in the second link of the chain of custody. 41 Stated otherwise, Basco impresses upon this Court that the seizing officers are not allowed to mark and inventory the seized items lest they violate the second link in the chain of custody.
There is no merit in this protestation.
It is customary in buy-bust operations that the marking is accomplished by the apprehending officers. In fact, jurisprudence defines marking [as] "the placing by the arresting officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the items after they have been seized. 42 It is the starting point in the custodial link." 43
The same is true with the conduct of inventory. Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 provides:
(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. (Emphasis supplied)
From the foregoing, it is crystal clear that it is the apprehending team that is required to accomplish the marking and physical inventory of the seized items, immediately upon confiscation, and not the investigator, as claimed by the defense. The investigator steps in only for the purpose of conducting the proper investigation and preparing the necessary documents for the developing criminal case. This process consists of the second link in the chain of custody.
To stress, the second link pertains to the transfer of the seized drugs from the apprehending officer to the investigating officer. In this regard, it is worthy to note that SPO3 Romeo Correa (SPO3 Correa) was presented by the prosecution as the assigned investigator on the case. Despite his presentation in court, however, the defense agreed to dispense with his testimony and instead resorted to a stipulation and even admitted the existence, genuineness and due execution of the investigation report prepared by SPO3 Correa. 44 The investigator could have personally testified as to the turnover of the drugs to him by PO3 Cepeda and SPO1 Osurman but the defense has decided to forego the opportunity to cross-examine him on the subject, only to raise the same issue for the first time on appeal. This matter could have been addressed already during trial. Thus, it is too late in the day for Basco to invoke the alleged breach. We quote the stipulated testimony of SPO3 Correa, viz.:
COURT
Will you stipulate counsel?
ATTY. GLIPONEO
Yes, Your Honor.
COURT
Anyway, the investigation report are (sic) just a reiteration of the blotter, the affidavits, so admitted?
ATTY. GLIPONEO
Admitted, Your Honor.
COURT
With that Fiscal?
PROS. LORAYES
The document sought to be identified by the witness was marked as Exhibit C for the prosecution consisting of three (3) pages.
COURT
Order.
Defense counsel-Atty. Lizglen L. Gliponeo, counsel for the accused, admitted the existence, genuineness and due execution of the investigation Report marked as Exhibit C prepared by SPO3 Romero Correa. Thus, the testimony of the latter is hereby dispensed with. 45
In a further effort to impugn the prosecution's case, the defense posits that there was a break in the fourth link due to the failure of the prosecution to present the evidence custodian, PO3 Bagato, to testify on the precautions taken to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the specimens.
This argument does not hold water.
The fourth link involves "the submission of the seized drugs by the forensic chemist to the court when presented as evidence in the criminal case."46
Here, Forensic Chemist Pabustan personally appeared before the trial court and gave a detailed account as to the management, storage, and preservation of the illegal drug specimens.
We quote with approval the following observation of the court a quo:
Also, after the confiscated corpus delicti were brought to the police station for the execution of the Investigation Report, the concerned officers personally brought the seized drugs to the Crime Laboratory as attested by PO3 Villanueva, the receiving officer on duty that day who, likewise, testified that he immediately turned over the same to PSI Pabustan, Jr. PSI Pabustan, Jr. in turn, testified receiving the subject specimen from PO3 Villanueva which all tested positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. PSI Pabustan, Jr. categorically testified that after opening the heat-sealed plastics, he re-sealed the same with masking tape then wrote his own markings and signature therein which were then kept by their evidence custodian until PSI Pabustan, Jr. brought the same before the RTC for presentation and its eventual destruction. 47
PSI Pabustan then personally brought before the trial court the subject specimens together with the results of the examination he conducted thereon. More importantly, PSI Pabustan identified during trial the sachets of shabu presented in court to be the same sachets of shabu that he examined as they contained his markings thereon. Thus, contrary to Basco's claim, the fourth link in the chain of custody was duly established.
Finally, the prosecution satisfactorily established that the marking and inventory of the seized items were immediately done at the place of the arrest and in the presence of the insulating witnesses.
Verily, the prosecution was able to establish with moral certainty that there is an unbroken chain of custody of the confiscated items from the time they were lawfully seized from Basco up to their production in court.
Thus, against this overwhelming evidence for the prosecution, Basco's defenses of denial and frame-up must necessarily fail. We have invariably viewed with disfavor the defenses of denial and frame-up because they can easily be concocted and are common and standard defense ploys in prosecutions for violation of RA 9165. 48 In order to prosper, Basco has the burden to prove his defenses of denial and frame-up with strong and convincing evidence, and overcome the presumption that the police officers properly performed their duties. 49 Unfortunately, Basco undeniably failed to discharge this burden.
Accordingly, We affirm the conviction of Basco for the crimes of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165.
Penalty.
Under the law, the penalty for the Unauthorized Sale of Shabu, regardless of its quantity and purity, is life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10 Million. 50 However, with the enactment of RA 9346, 51 only life imprisonment and fine shall be imposed. Thus, the penalty imposed by the trial court in Criminal Case No. 13725, i.e., life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00, is in order.
On the other hand, the penalty prescribed by law for the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 is imprisonment of 12 years and one day to 20 years and a fine ranging from P300,000.00 to P400,000.00, if the quantity of the dangerous drug is less than five grams. In this case, Basco was found to have been in illegal possession of a total of 0.348 gram of shabu. Thus, he was properly meted the penalty of imprisonment ranging from 12 years and one day as minimum to 14 years as maximum and a fine of P300,000.00 in Criminal Case No. 13726.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED. The assailed January 16, 2020 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09975, is AFFIRMED. Accused-appellant Edwin Basco y Apodaca is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 in Criminal Case No. 13725. In Criminal Case No. 13726, accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of 12 years and one day as minimum to 14 years as maximum and to pay a fine of P300,000.00.
SO ORDERED." (S.A.J. Perlas-Bernabe, on official leave; J. Hernando, Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2855 dated November 10, 2021; J. Inting recused himself as his sister, J. Socorro B. Inting, had prior participation in the Court of Appeals; J. Zalameda designated as additional Member per raffle dated August 19, 2020.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 22-23. Captioned as Notice of Appeal.
2.Id. at 3-21. Penned by Associate Justice Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin and concurred by Associate Justices Danton Q. Bueser, and Walter S. Ong.
3. CA rollo, pp. 57-70. Docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 13725 & 13726 and penned by Judge Elmer M. Lanuzo.
4. 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" (2002).
5. Records (Criminal Case No. 13725), p. 1.
6. Records (Criminal Case No. 13726), pp. 2-3.
7.Id. at 77.
8. TSN dated October 18, 2016, pp. 3-9.
9. Records (Criminal Case No. 13726), p. 17.
10.Id. at 18.
11.Id. at 19.
12. TSN dated October 18, 2016, pp. 10-27.
13. Records (Criminal Case No. 13726), pp. 14-15.
14.Id. at 21.
15.Id. at 27 and 29.
16.Id. at 32.
17.Id. at 33.
18. TSN dated October 4, 2016, pp. 3-17.
19. TSN dated August 8, 2017, pp. 2-6.
20.Id.
21. CA rollo, pp. 57-70.
22.Id. at 70.
23.Id. at 16-17.
24.Id. at 46.
25.Rollo, pp. 3-21.
26.Id. at 11-20.
27.Id. at 22-23.
28. CA rollo, p. 48.
29.Id. at 50.
30.Id. at 48-52.
31.Id. at 54.
32.People v. Nicart, 690 Phil. 263, 283 (2012).
33.People v. Dela Peña, 754 Phil. 323, 338 (2015).
34. Records (Criminal Case No. 13726), p. 18.
35.Id. at 17.
36.Id. at 19.
37.People v. Alberto, 625 Phil. 545, 554 (2010).
38.Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 686 Phil. 137, 148 (2012).
39.People v. Barte, 806 Phil. 533, 542, 2017.
40.People v. Gayoso, 808 Phil. 19, 31 (2017), citing People v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134, 144-145 (2010).
41. CA rollo, p. 52.
42.People v. Gayoso, supra.
43.Id.
44. TSN, February 14, 2017, p. 3.
45.Id.
46.People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 237 (2015).
47.Rollo, p. 20.
48. See People v. Magalong, G.R. No. 231838, March 4, 2019.
49. See Id.
50. Republic Act No. 9165, Article II, Section 5.
51. An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines.
n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.
n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.