People v. Bautista y Luna

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 252388. April 26, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MYRA CARISSA BAUTISTA y LUNA, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated April 26, 2021 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 252388 (People of the Philippines v. Myra Carissa Bautista y Luna). — This is an appeal filed by Myra Carissa Bautista y Luna (accused-appellant), which seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision 1 dated July 29, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10456, which affirmed the Judgment 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 98 in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-16-12701-CR finding her guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."

Facts of the Case

The case stemmed from an Information filed against accused-appellant for violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, the accusatory portion thereof reads:

That on or about the 1st day of November 2016, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, without lawful authority, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport, or act as a broker in the said transaction one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing zero point one four (0.14) gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

Contrary to law. 3

Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. 4

Version of the Prosecution

On October 31, 2016, around 11:00 p.m., a regular confidential informant went to PNP Cubao Police Station 7, Quezon City Police District (QCPD) to report the illegal drug activities of a certain "Sharon" in Barangay E. Rodriguez, Cubao, Quezon City. The informant reported to PO1 Jennifer Velasco (PO1 Velasco) that a certain "Sharon" and accused-appellant were engaged in the illegal sale of dangerous drugs and that they were staying at Tizza Apartelle located at No. 28 Imperial St., Barangay E. Rodriguez, Cubao, Quezon City. The informant described "Sharon" as a woman who had a medium built, fair complexion, was 5'1 in height and was wearing black spaghetti strap and gray pants. Meanwhile, accused-appellant was described to have a small built, fair complexion, was 5'3 in height and wearing dirty white and navy blue stripes lady's dress. 5

Upon receipt of this information, a buy-bust team was formed with PO1 Velasco as the poseur-buyer, PO3 Espartacus Pareja (PO3 Pareja) as immediate back-up and the rest of the team as perimeter security. PO1 Velasco was given five P100.00-bills with serial numbers JQ822935, HF496887, B783328, UH448063, and VT40675 to be used as boodle money and which she marked with her initials "JV" on the upper right corner of the bills. It was also agreed during the meeting that PO1 Velasco will scratch her head once the sale is consummated as a pre-arranged signal. 6

Around 12:20 a.m. on November 1, 2016, the buy-bust team proceeded to the target area together with the confidential informant aboard their private vehicle. They waited until "Sharon" and accused-appellant arrived in the area. Around 2:50 a.m., the confidential informant spotted "Sharon" and accused-appellant going outside of the gate of Tizza Apartelle and informed PO1 Velasco that they were the subjects of the buy-bust operation. 7

The confidential informant and PO1 Velasco approached them and the informant introduced PO1 Velasco as the scorer/buyer of the illegal drugs. The informant told Sharon "Sha paiskor kami" to which accused-appellant replied "[m]agkano ba kukunin niyo?" POl Velasco answered "Lima lang" while simultaneously handing the boodle money which accused-appellant received with her right hand. Thereafter, Sharon handed to accused-appellant a black pouch and told the latter "[k]uha ka isa diyan, bigay mo sa kanila." Accused-appellant followed Sharon's instruction, opened the pouch, took out several pieces of heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets, picked one sachet and gave it to PO1 Velasco. Then, accused-appellant put back the other sachets inside the black pouch. Upon receiving the item, PO1 Velasco scratched her head to signal to her teammates that the sale has been consummated. 8

Thereafter, PO1 Velasco grabbed accused-appellant and introduced herself as police. Accused-appellant tried to resist but failed due to the timely arrival of PO3 Pareja. However, Sharon was able to abscond inside the apartelle and eluded arrest. The police were unable to locate Sharon despite coordination with the management of the apartelle. Accused-appellant was bodily searched. A black pouch and five Pl00.00-bills were retrieved from her custody. Upon her arrest, PO3 Pareja informed her of her constitutional rights and the nature and cause of her apprehension. 9

PO1 Velasco marked the seized plastic sachet from accused-appellant with marking "JV/MCB BUYBUST 11/1/16" while the other plastic sachets retrieved inside the black pouch were marked "JV/MCB-1 11/1/16" to "JV/MCB-4 11/1/16." 10 However, due to the sudden rainfall and crowding at the place, the police continued the inventory at the barangay hall. The inventory was witnessed by Barangay Captain Marcelino Buena Agua (Brgy. Captain Agua). He signed the inventory form in front of the accused-appellant and PO1 Velasco while PO3 Pareja took photographs. Thereafter, they proceeded to the police station. SPO1 Errol Tejares (SPO1 Tejares), the assigned investigator, prepared the documents and request for laboratory examination in relation with the case. Consequently, PO1 Velasco brought the request and the specimens to the QCPD Crime Laboratory which was received by Police Chief Inspector Anamelisa S. Bacani (PCI Bacani), the forensic chemist who conducted the qualitative examination over the seized drugs. 11 PCI Bacani issued Chemistry Report No. D-1853-16 12 indicating therein that the subject specimens were found to be positive of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. 13

The prosecution presented PO1 Velasco and PO3 Pareja as its witnesses while the testimonies of SPO1 Tejares and PCI Bacani were dispensed with after the parties admitted the following stipulations:

1. that SPO1 Tejares was the investigator of the case and he prepared the Letter Referral, Affidavits of the arresting officers and of the accused-appellant, Requests for Laboratory and Drug Test Examination, Inventory of the Seized Evidence, Chain of Custody Form, Booking Sheet and Arrest Report, Coordination Form and Pre-Operational Report; 14

2. that PO1 Velasco presented to SPO1 Tejares the five pieces of heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance with markings and the five P100.00-bills for recording purposes; 15

3. that SPO1 Tejares has no personal knowledge of the arrest and seizure of the evidence, as well as the inventory and markings of the seized drugs; 16

4. that PCI Bacani was the forensic chemist who received the Request and the five heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets from PO1 Velasco; 17

5. that PCI Bacani conducted qualitative examination over the submitted specimens and found that they are positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug; 18

6. that she likewise received a request for drug test and specimen urine sample of accused-appellant and conducted qualitative examination over the same which yielded positive result for the presence of Methylamphetamine but negative for THC-metabolites; 19

7. that she issued Initial Laboratory Report Chemist Report No. D-1853-16 and QCDT-3890-16; 20

8. that after her examination, she sealed the subject specimens and put her markings as "D-1853-16 A ASB," "D-1853-16 B ASB," "D-1853-16 C ASB," "D-1853-16 D ASB," and "D-1853-16 E ASB," placed her signature with corresponding date, and then placed them in a bigger plastic with markings "D-1853-16 ASB" dated November 1, 2016 and turned over the same to the evidence custodian on November 2, 2016; 21

9. that the subject specimens were turned over to the court on February 6 2017; 22

10. that she has no personal knowledge of the arrest of the accused-appellant and the seizure of the evidence. 23

Version of the Defense

The defense presented accused-appellant as its lone witness. According to the accused-appellant, she only knew of the charge against her when she was brought to the police precinct. On October 31, 2016, she was on her way home when she looked for a loading station around Aurora Boulevard in Cubao. While she was in the loading store, three topless men approached her and coerced her to ride their motorcycle. One of the men brought her in a dark alley and asked her to pull the strap of her bra. When she asked why, she was told to just follow the instruction. Thereafter, the guy answered his phone and talked to someone however, accused-appellant cannot understand what they were talking about. She was asked to ride the motorcycle again and she was brought in a closed gasoline station. They found shelter thereat because the rain started to drizzle. Moments later, a white van arrived and she was instructed to go inside the vehicle. She later learned that she was brought to the police station and that she is being charged of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. She vehemently denies the charge against her and avers that she never sold any drugs. 24

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

On November 17, 2017, RTC issued a Judgment 25 finding accused-appellant guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, ruling in this wise:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused MYRA CARISSA BAUTISTA y LUNA GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165 (Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs), is hereby sentenced to LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a FINE of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00).

The one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with marking "JV/MCB BUYBUST 11/1/16" containing zero point zero one four (0.14) gram of white crystalline substance containing METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE, a dangerous drug, a dangerous drug (sic), subject of this case is ordered confiscated.

Upon finality of this Judgment, the Branch Clerk of Court is directed to turn over the aforesaid evidence to the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB), through the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) to be disposed of in accordance with law, and the receipt of transmittal shall be attached to the records of this case.

The five (5) pieces of One hundred peso bill (sic) serial numbers JQ822935, HF496887, B783328, UH448063 and VT40675 utilized as buy-bust money are forthwith forfeited in favor of the government and the same to be remitted to the proper agency, through the Office of the Clerk of Court, in accordance with existing laws, rules and regulations.

Furnish copies of this judgment the Office of the PNP Director General, District Director of the QCPD, as well as the Station Commander of Police Station 7, Cubao, QC for their proper guidance.

Furnish likewise copies of this judgment the Office of the PNP Director General, as well as the Director of the DDB and PDEA, who are directed to render report on the disposal of the subject drug evidence within five (5) days from notice.

Accused Myra Bautista should be committed to the Women's Correctional in Mandaluyong City for her detention in this case.

SO ORDERED." 26

The RTC ruled that all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were established and proven by the prosecution. The positive identification of the accused-appellant made by PO1 Velasco as the poseur-buyer, buttressed by the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty, was given credence by the trial court. 27

Although the trial court found that there were lapses in the procedure laid out in Section 21 of R.A. 9165, such as the inventory was conducted not in the place of the arrest and the police failed to secure Department of Justice (DOJ) and media personnel witnesses, these lapses do not necessarily render the arrest as illegal and the seized evidence as inadmissible. It ruled that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs was duly proven upon showing by the prosecution that there were no gaps in the chain of custody. 28

From the time of the arrest, PO1 Velasco marked the seized drugs with her initials and has been in custody of the evidence from the time that it was inventoried in the barangay hall until it was turned over to SPO1 Tejares, the assigned investigator, for recording and preparation of reports and documents. Thereafter, PO1 Velasco, with the Request for Examination, turned over the seized drugs to PCI Bacani, a forensic chemist, who conducted the qualitative examination on the submitted specimens, which yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrocholoride. From these facts, the trial court found that there were no breaks in the chain of custody of the evidence. 29

On the issues of lack of prior surveillance or test buy and of powder dusting of the boodle money, RTC ruled that these are not requirements of a valid buy-bust operation. The lack thereof will not invalidate a properly conducted buy-bust operation. 30

Aggrieved, accused-appellant filed an appeal with the CA. 31

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On July 29, 2019, CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC convicting accused-appellant, viz.:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Judgment dated 17 November 2017 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 98 in R-QZN-16-12701-CR is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED. 32

Affirming the decision of the RTC, CA ruled that the prosecution sufficiently established all the elements to sustain the conviction of accused-appellant. The prosecution's evidence was able to establish all the links in the chain of custody of the seized drugs. Non-compliance with the procedures under Section 21 of R.A. 9165 was excused and justified as shown by the earnest efforts done by the police to secure a media personnel witness. It was due to the time constraints and urgency of the operation that prevented the police from complying with the rules. 33

With respect to the issue of prior surveillance, CA held that a prior surveillance is neither a necessary requirement for the validity of a buy-bust operation nor is it detrimental to the prosecution's case. The immediate conduct of the buy-bust operation is within the discretion of the police officers, especially when they are accompanied by the confidential informant in the conduct of the operation. 34

Lastly, the accused-appellant's defense of denial and frame-up cannot prevail over the strong evidence of the prosecution. Accused-appellant failed to impute any ulterior motive on the part of the police that could have induced them to falsely testify against her. There was no showing that the police acted in bad faith or have digressed from their regular performance of duty. 35

Accused-appellant interposed an appeal with this Court. 36

In its Manifestation in Lieu of Supplemental Brief 37 dated December 18, 2020, the Office of the Solicitor General manifested that it will no longer file a Supplemental Brief having thoroughly discussed all the issues in its Appellee's Brief 38 dated February 8, 2019 filed before the CA. In its Manifestation in Lieu of Supplemental Brief 39 dated November 19, 2020, the Public Attorney's Office manifested that it will no longer file a supplemental brief since it already extensively discussed its arguments in the Appellant's Brief 40 dated October 2, 2018.

Issue

The issue in this case is whether accused-appellant has been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165.

Accused-appellant avers that the prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. There was no surveillance or test buy conducted by the police to confirm the report of the confidential informant. 41 Further, the police failed to comply with the procedures laid out in Section 21 of R.A. 9165. There was no representative from the National Prosecution Service or from the media during the inventory. Likewise, there was no proof of the condition of the seized evidence after it was qualitatively examined and before it was offered in court. Further, the seizing officer failed to mark the evidence with her initials indicating therein the date, time and place where the evidence was found and seized in violation of Section 13 of the PNP Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operation and Investigation. These irregularities cast doubt on the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug, thereby casting doubt on the guilt of accused-appellant. 42

Ruling of the Court

The appeal is meritorious.

At the outset, it has been jurisprudentially established that in criminal cases, an appeal throws the entire case wide open for review and the reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed judgment, or even reverse the trial court's decision based on grounds other than those that the parties raised as errors. 43

To sustain a conviction under Section 5 of R.A. 9165 or Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is important is that the sale transaction of drugs actually took place and that the object of the transaction is properly presented as evidence in court and is shown to be the same drugs seized from the accused. 44

Section 21 (1), Article II of R.A. 9165, as amended by R.A. 10640, outlines the procedure in seizure, custody, and handling of the seized illegal drugs the arresting officers must follow in conducting a buy-bust operation, to wit:

(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 person/s 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.

xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis supplied)

While this Court recognizes that strict compliance thereto may not always be possible, it is of utmost importance that the prosecution explains the reason behind the procedural lapses. This Court has ruled that for the saving clause to apply, the following elements must be present: (1) the existence of justifiable grounds to allow departure from the rule on strict compliance; and (2) the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team. The prosecution bears the burden of proving these elements.

In this case, while the RTC and the CA both found that there was noncompliance with the procedures laid out in Section 21 of R.A. 9165, they ruled that this noncompliance was excused and justified and that the police has properly preserved the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. However, We rule otherwise.

The apprehending team admitted that only initial marking was done upon seizure and confiscation of the illegal drugs. They had to transfer to the barangay hall for the inventory and taking of photographs because it suddenly rained and people started to crowd the area. Furthermore, the arresting officers admitted that only the presence of the barangay official was secured to witness the inventory of the seized articles. In their Affidavits, the apprehending officers explained that they tried to secure the presence of a media personnel and called him several times, however he failed to appear.

We rule that such explanations do not suffice to justify their noncompliance with the procedural rules under the law. In People v. De Guzman, 45 it was emphasized that the justifiable ground for noncompliance must be proven as a fact, because the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist. 46 The justifiable reason for such failure to comply or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses must therefore be adduced. 47

The conduct of marking, inventory and photograph of the seized illegal drugs immediately upon seizure and confiscation ensures that the evidence was free from any infirmities or manipulation. This is bolstered by the additional requirement that the inventory be witnessed by an elected public official and a member of the DOJ or the media. A stricter application of this procedure is called for when the amount of illegal drugs involved is miniscule because it is highly susceptible to planting, tampering, or alteration of evidence, 48 such as in this case.

In People v. Mola, 49 this Court held that immediate physical inventory and photograph of the confiscated item may be excused in instances when the safety and security of the apprehending officers and the witnesses required by law or of the items seized are threatened by immediate or extreme danger such as retaliatory action of those who have the resources and capability to mount a counter-assault. 50

But no such threat or danger exists in this case. Further, the Court finds it incredulous that when it started to rain, the people started to crowd the area. The apprehending team could just have found shelter inside the apartelle where they arrested accused-appellant and conducted the inventory and photograph there. Instead, they opted to transfer to the barangay hall. Also, they failed to show that the crowding of the area posed a threat or danger to them that could hamper their operation.

Likewise, the Court finds the bust-buy operation highly doubtful and contrived. PO1 Velasco admitted that "Sharon" was their target and not accused-appellant. However, the police failed to apprehend her despite their team consisting of more than five members. If "Sharon" was indeed their target, the police should have crafted a plan to arrest her at all costs. But they failed to do so for no justifiable reason.

Moreover, mere statements that they tried to call the media representative without any showing of actual serious attempts to secure his presence are unacceptable as justified grounds for noncompliance. There were no genuine and earnest efforts done to show that they tried all the possible means to obtain the presence of the required witnesses. In People v. Macapundag, 51 We held that "the presence of these personalities and the immediate marking and conduct of physical inventory after seizure and confiscation in full view of the accused and the required witnesses cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality." 52

Furthermore, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized evidence has been compromised for failure of the prosecution to establish the fourth link in the chain of custody.

Under the chain of custody rule, there are four links that must be duly proved, to wit:

x x x [F]irst, 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. 53

To duly establish the identity and integrity of the seized drugs, the chain of custody rule requires "testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same." 54

Records disclose that the forensic chemist failed to testify on how the seized evidence was handled from the time she finished the examination and until it was turned over to the court for presentation. PCI Bacani merely stated that she turned over the same to the evidence custodian. However, the evidence custodian was not presented as a witness to describe the condition and the handling of the seized articles from the time it was turned over to him until it was presented to the court. Such a gap in the chain of custody casts a doubt in the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti of the offense.

In People v. Obmiranis, 55 we acquitted appellant Obmiranis due to flaws in the conduct of the post-seizure custody of the dangerous drug allegedly recovered from the appellant, together with the failure of the key persons who handled the dangerous drug to testify on the whereabouts of the exhibit before it was offered in evidence in court.

Hence, there being doubts on the identity and evidentiary value of the seized dangerous drugs, a ruling of acquittal must follow. We have consistently ruled that in a prosecution for the sale of dangerous drugs under R.A. 9165, the State carries the heavy burden of proving not only the elements of the offense, but also the integrity and evidentiary of the corpus delicti failing in which, renders the evidence for the State insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Even an ounce of doubt in the guilt of the accused shall result to an acquittal consistent with the Constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent.

The presumption of regularity in the performance of functions cannot overcome the right of the accused to be presumed innocent until her guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption will not apply when there are procedural infirmities in the operations conducted by the police officers, such as in this case.

Accordingly, there being a finding that the integrity of the seized drugs was compromised and there being a break in the chain of custody which was fatal to the prosecution's case, We acquit accused-appellant for failure to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated July 29, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10456 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant MYRA CARISSA BAUTISTA y LUNA is ACQUITTED based on reasonable doubt and is accordingly ORDERED to be IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from custody unless she is being lawfully held for another offense.

The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to implement this Resolution and to report to this Court the action taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt.

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 Jhosep Y. Lopez (now a Member of this Court), with the concurrence of Associate Justices Jane Aurora C. Lantion and J. Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas; rollo, pp. 3-16.

2. CA rollo, pp. 46-58.

3. Penned by Presiding Judge Marilou D. Runes-Tamang, MNSA; records, p. 1.

4.Id. at 36.

5.Id. at 6.

6. CA rollo, p. 50.

7.Id.

8.Id.

9.Id. at 50-51.

10. Records, p. 7.

11.Id. at 7-8.

12.Id. at 12.

13.Id.

14. CA rollo, p. 47.

15.Id.

16.Id. at 48.

17.Id.

18.Id.

19.Id.

20.Id.

21.Id.

22.Id. at 49.

23.Id.

24.Id. at 49-50.

25.Id. at 46-58.

26.Id. at 57-58.

27.Id. at 55.

28.Id. at 56.

29.Id.

30.Id. at 56-57.

31.Id. at 10.

32.Rollo, p. 16.

33.Id. at 9.

34.Id. at 11.

35.Id. at 14-15.

36.Id. at 17.

37.Id. at 33-34.

38. CA rollo, pp. 73-88.

39.Rollo, p. 28.

40. CA rollo, pp. 28-43.

41.Id. at 35.

42.Id. at 36-40.

43.Ramos v. People, People of the Philippines v. Ramos, 803 Phil. 775, 783 (2017).

44.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017).

45. 630 Phil. 637 (2010).

46.Id. at 649.

47.People v. Umpiang, 686 Phil. 1024, 1052-1053 (2012).

48.See People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78 (2014).

49. 830 Phil. 364 (2018).

50.Id. at 375.

51. 807 Phil. 234 (2017).

52.Id. at 244.

53.People v. Gayoso, 808 Phil. 13, 31 (2017), citing People v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134, 144-145 (2010).

54.Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 587 (2008).

55. 594 Phil. 561, 577 (2008).