FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 237693. February 20, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.MA. REQUESA BERNAL y CABANA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated February 20, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 237693 — (People of the Philippines v. Ma. Requesa Bernal y Cabana)
This is an appeal by certiorari from the Decision 1 dated January 12, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01611, which affirmed the January 27, 2017 Consolidated Judgment 2 of the Regional Trial Court Special Drugs Court of Misamis Oriental, Branch 40 (RTC) in Crim. Case Nos. 2011-799 and 2011-800. The RTC found Ma. Requesa Bernal y Cabana (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165.
Antecedents
In Criminal Case No. 2011-800, appellant and her co-accused Charlie A. Uy (Uy) were charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The accusatory portion of the Information reads:
That on or about August 24, 2011, at more or less 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon, at Pacana Street, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping one another, without being authorized by law to sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drugs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, criminally and knowingly sell and/or offer for sale, and give away to a poseur buyer/decoy one (1) piece transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline granules weighing 0.3 gram, accused knowing the same to be a dangerous drug in consideration of P500.00 bearing serial number QB271647.
Contrary to and in violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. 3
Both accused were also charged with illegal possession of a dangerous drug in Crim. Case No. 2011-799. 4
When arraigned, appellant and Uy, duly assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty. 5
During the trial, the prosecution presented as witnesses P/SI Charity Peralta-Caceres 6(Forensic Chemist), Investigating Agent 3 Cecil M. Orcales 7(IA3 Orcales), Investigating Agent 1 Rodolfo S. De la Cerna, Jr. 8(IA1 De la Cerna, Jr.), Maricel Butardo from ABS-CBN and Barangay Kagawad Mario Balsarza 9(Kgd. Balsarza). For the defense, appellant 10 and Uy 11 testified. aScITE
Version of the Prosecution
On August 24, 2011, IA1 De la Cerna was on duty at the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Regional Office X in Cagayan de Oro City. At around 10:00 o'clock in the morning, a confidential informant (CI) arrived and reported that a certain @ "Kisa" was engaged in selling shabu at Julio Pacana Street and other neighboring areas using a motorcycle driven by an unidentified male companion. Upon receiving the information, the Regional Director instructed them to form a team for the conduct of a buy-bust operation. A briefing was then held wherein IA3 Orcales was designated as poseur-buyer while IA1 De la Cerna was assigned as team leader and arresting officer. The buy-bust money (P500.00) was prepared by recording its serial number in the office blotter and the team agreed on the pre-arranged signal (IA3 Orcales touching his head) to indicate that the transaction had been consummated. After the team had their lunch, a final briefing with the CI was conducted. 12
At 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon, the PDEA team composed of six (6) agents left and proceeded to the target area. Upon reaching Julio Pacana Street, IA3 Orcales and the CI alighted from the service vehicle (Toyota Innova) and walked towards Hanz Yuri Bakeshop near the Court of Appeals. The rest of the team stayed inside the car parked at a distance of twenty meters. After a few minutes of waiting, appellant arrived on board a black and white Honda XRM motorcycle with plate number 1624 KO driven by Uy. Appellant alighted from the motorcycle and briefly talked with the CI. Uy remained on his motorcycle watching them. IA3 Orcales was standing at the back of the CI who introduced him to appellant. In local dialect, the CI told appellant "Magkuha ang ako friend ug bali P500.00." Appellant then brought out a brown pouch from her left pocket, opened it and took out a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu which she gave to IA3 Orcales. In turn, IA3 Orcales handed the P500.00 buy-bust money to appellant, after which he made the pre-arranged signal. The rest of the team alighted from their car and rushed towards the front of the bakery. Uy tried to drive his motorcycle away from the area but was prevented by the PDEA agents. 13
IA1 De la Cerna arrested appellant while the other agents apprehended Uy. He recovered from appellant the P500.00 buy-bust money and three other transparent plastic sachets containing suspected shabu. He also informed the accused of their constitutional rights. IA3 Orcales turned over to him the plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance purchased from appellant. IA1 De la Cerna then marked the said plastic sachet with his initials "RDC-1," and the other three plastic sachets were marked "RDC-2" to "RDC-4." The inventory and photographing of the seized items were conducted outside the same bakery in the presence of the accused, Kgds. Balsarza and Butardo. Both also signed the Inventory of Seized Items/Confiscated Non-Drugs. 14
The accused were brought to the PDEA office for booking and documentation. IA1 De la Cerna kept the seized evidence inside an evidence box while in transit and, upon arrival at their office, put them in his locker. Later, he personally delivered the four plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory-Regional Office 10. Chemical analysis conducted on the said specimens yielded positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. 15
Version of the Defense
Uy testified that on August 24, 2011 at noontime, he drove his motorcycle going to his mother's house at Barangay 31, Sto. Niño, Cogon, Cagayan de Oro City. However, he learned that his mother was at Macabalan at that time. At his mother's house, he saw appellant, who is his sister-in-law and lives with his mother. When appellant learned that he was going to Macabalan, she asked to go with him as she had to pay her electricity bill. He let her ride on his motorcycle and they left his mother's house. He dropped her off at Licuan Street near the Court of Appeals and went on his way to Macabalan. However, after traveling 100 meters, his path was suddenly blocked by a white van coming from the other side of the road. A person grabbed his back causing his motorcycle to fall (when that person testified in court, he found out it was IA1 De la Cerna). When he fell on the ground, he was boxed by another man wearing a PDEA ID who told him to be still. His body was searched but the PDEA officers found nothing. He was brought to the other side of the road and his motorcycle key was taken.
Thereafter, a kagawad approached and asked him: "Are you the one who keeps on coming back here and selling shabu using the red motorcycle?" He replied: "Sir, I am not the one you are referring to because my motorcycle is color[ed] black." The PDEA officers boarded him inside the van and he heard one of them asking if the woman had been apprehended. He learned shortly thereafter that appellant was already arrested. She was transferred to the same van and the two of them were brought to a bakery at Licuan Street. There he saw, placed on a table, drug evidence which the PDEA officers said were recovered from appellant. 16
On cross-examination, 17 Uy admitted that he was previously charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs also at Sto. Niño, Cagayan De Oro City but was acquitted. Upon his release on April 29, 2011, he engaged in the business of buying and selling of cocoa. 18 aDSIHc
On her part, appellant Ma. Requesa Bernal testified that on the day in question, she requested his brother-in-law, Uy (his brother being her live-in partner), for a ride on his motorcycle going to CEPALCO at Julio Pacana Street to pay her electricity bill. Uy was then visiting the house of her mother-in-law. He dropped her at Julio Pacana Street and he proceeded towards his aunt's house at Macabalan. As she was walking towards the CEPALCO office, she saw a fast moving vehicle from a distance of twenty meters suddenly stop. Two armed men alighted from the said vehicle, aimed their guns at her and rushed towards her. One of the men held her hand. They asked her where she left the shabu. When she told them that she did not have any shabu, they brought her to their vehicle. Inside the vehicle, a female person searched her body and took away her cellphone and cash (P1,200.00). Said female person alighted from the vehicle but one of her companions, the man who apprehended appellant, boarded the vehicle asking where she placed the shabu. She gave the same reply that she has never touched shabu. Said male person alighted from the vehicle and when he returned, Uy was already with them. 19
She was surprised to see her brother-in-law who told her that the persons who were arresting them were likewise searching for shabu from him. After five minutes, she and Uy disembarked and they were brought to a bakery located in the same street. There were a number of people standing around a table on which was placed certain items, including her cellphone. Pictures of the said items were taken but she could not understand what was happening. Thereafter, she and Uy were brought to an office near the provincial jail. They were photographed and detained in a "mini cell." She denied selling shabu at any time in her life. 20
On cross-examination, 21 appellant insisted that she never noticed Uy driving his motorcycle when she saw him after she was apprehended. She claimed that she was at the time engaged in the business of selling used clothes at the market.
Ruling of the RTC
The trial court held that the prosecution successfully established the elements of illegal sale of shabu. Appellant was positively identified by IA3 Orcales as the one who sold to him one plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance for the price of P500.00. Upon completing the transaction, IA3 Orcales arrested her and recovered from her the P500.00 marked money. The shabu sold by appellant was also positively identified and presented during the trial. Appellant failed to offer evidence of any improper motive on the part of the buy-bust team, hence, the testimonies of the PDEA agents deserved full faith and credence. 22
However, the trial court found that the prosecution failed to establish the fact that Uy conspired with appellant in the commission of the offense. While the sale was taking place, Uy was just sitting on his motorcycle at a certain distance from the transacting parties. 23
On the charge of illegal possession of shabu, the trial court found insufficient evidence of guilt in view of the failure of the prosecution to establish the identity of the subject dangerous drug. While the three plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance were offered and admitted when the forensic chemist testified on November 13, 2012, these items were no longer available when IA1 De la Cerna testified in court on April 20, 2015 as these were presumably destroyed by a fire that gutted the Hall of Justice and the Office of the City Prosecutor on January 30, 2015. 24
The RTC thus decreed:
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises considered, the court hereby finds as follows:
1. In Crim. Case No. 2011-800, accused Ma. Requesa Bernal y Cabana is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of having committed the offense charged in the information (violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165). She is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00), without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Accused CharlieUy y Awitan is hereby ordered ACQUITTED of the crime charged, for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
2. In Crim. Case No. 2011-799, this Court resolves to ACQUIT the accused Ma. Requesa Bernal y Cabana and Charlie Uy y Awitan for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. TIADCc
The period of Bernal's preventive detention shall be credited in her favor. Accused Charlie Uy is hereby ordered released from detention unless he is detained for some other lawful cause.
SO ORDERED. 25
Ruling of the CA
On appeal, the CA upheld appellant's conviction for illegal sale of a dangerous drug. Rejecting appellant's contention that the prosecution failed to establish the corpus delicti, the appellate court said that notwithstanding the unavailability of the drug evidence subject of the buy-bust sale during the formal offer, the prosecution had already shown the existence of the corpus delicti when IA3 Orcales testified and identified the dangerous drug presented in court. The same drug presented in court was shown to be the same drug seized from appellant during the buy-bust operation.
As to the alleged non-compliance with the chain of custody rule, the appellate court concluded that the prosecution was able to prove that the identity and integrity of the sachet of shabu bought from appellant were preserved. 26
Issues
Appellant raised the following issues in her supplemental brief: 1) Whether a buy-bust operation actually took place; 2) Whether compliance with the chain of custody requirement was sufficiently established.
Appellant's Arguments
Appellant contends that the account given by prosecution witnesses on the alleged buy-bust sale was too convenient to be believable. A drug peddler would have been very careful and discreet in ascertaining the identity of his prospective buyer and yet, in this case, appellant supposedly immediately sold shabu to IA3 Orcales after the latter was introduced to her by the CI. Moreover, IA1 De La Cerna's testimony as back-up officer casts more doubt on the occurrence of the buy-bust sale since he admitted not being able to hear the conversation between appellant and the poseur buyer from a considerable distance of 20 to 30 meters. 27
The procedural safeguards provided in Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 were likewise not observed by the prosecution. The fatal flaw in this case is the absence of testimony by prosecution witnesses that the seized dangerous drug allegedly received from appellant was properly marked immediately after the poseur buyer received it. Moreover, the records do not show what happened to the alleged seized items, between the turnover by the custodian to the investigator, and from the latter to the forensic chemist up to its presentation in court. There was no explanation or justification given by the apprehending officers for failure to comply with the mandatory safeguards to preserve the identity and integrity of the drug evidence. 28
Solicitor General's Arguments
In the appeal brief filed by the Solicitor General in behalf of the People, it was emphasized that IA3 Orcales' testimony on the sale of shabu clearly established all its elements. Moreover, contrary to appellant's claim, the prosecution has proven the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti. 29
The Solicitor General stated that all the crucial links in the chain of custody as provided in Sec. 21, par. 1, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 were sufficiently complied with. The testimonies of IA3 Orcales, IA1 De la Cerna and P/CI Caceres disclosed an unbroken chain of custody. Hence, appellant's conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drug should be upheld by this Court. 30
The Court's Ruling
For a successful prosecution of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following essential elements must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified. 31
The testimony of PDEA Agent Orcales clearly established that he was able to purchase 0.3 gram of shabu from appellant for the price of P500.00 after he was introduced by the CI as a buyer. Sale transactions involving illicit drugs in most cases are facilitated by a go-between, usually a friend or client of the illegal drug peddler. In buy-bust operations, the employment of a confidential informant has become crucial in the successful entrapment of violators of the law.
Nevertheless, the Court has ruled that, even when the illegal sale of a dangerous drug was proven by the prosecution, the latter is still burdened to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti. Thus, even if there was a sale, the corpus delicti is not proven if the chain of custody was defective. 32 AIDSTE
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment employed by peace officers to apprehend prohibited drug law violators in the act of committing a drug-related offense. 33 Because of the built-in danger for abuse that a buy-bust operation carries, it is governed by specific procedures on the seizure and custody of drugs, separate from the general law procedures geared to ensure that the rights of people under criminal investigation 34 and of the accused facing a criminal charge are safeguarded. 35
The procedural safeguard provided under Sec. 21, par. 1 of R.A. No. 9165 reads:
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the 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[.]
The Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 further provide:
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — . . .
(a) The apprehending officer/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: 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, further, that noncompliance with 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 of and custody over said items[.]
The marking by the arresting officer of the drugs, being the starting point in the custodial link, should be made immediately upon the seizure or, if that is not possible, as close to the time and place of the seizure as practicable under the obtaining circumstances.
In this case, the plastic sachet containing shabu which was bought from appellant was marked by the arresting officer IA1 De la Cerna with his initials at the scene of the buy-bust operation just before he conducted the inventory and photographing of the same. Both the inventory and photographing were also done in the same place of arrest, and witnessed by the accused, Kgd. Balsarza and media representative Bustardo. Balsarza and Bustardo likewise signed the inventory receipt. As shown by the photographs 36 taken during the inventory, both accused also witnessed the marking and inventory conducted by IA1 De la Cerna.
However, the prosecution failed to explain the absence of a DOJ representative during the inventory and photographing of the seized evidence. Under the amendment introduced by R.A. No. 10640, 37 a representative of the media may be present in place of the representative of the National Prosecution Service. But since the subject sale transaction took place in 2011, before the amendment of Sec. 21 (1), Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, the original implementing rule of the said provision shall apply.
Non-compliance with the requirements of Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 — under justifiable grounds — will not render void and invalid the seizure and custody over the seized items so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer or team. 38 The failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the procedure laid out in Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR does 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 justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 39
The Court declared in Anyayahan v. People40 that, for the saving clause in the IRR of Sec. 21 (1) to apply, the prosecution must explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses, and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized evidence had nonetheless been preserved. Thus: AaCTcI
It is well-settled that the procedure in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 is a matter of substantive law and cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality. While non-compliance is allowed, the same ought to be justified. Therefore, it must be shown that earnest efforts were exerted by the police officers involved to comply with the mandated procedure as to convince the Court that the attempt to comply was reasonable under the given circumstances. Since this was not the case here, the Court is impelled to conclude that there has been an unjustified breach of procedure and hence, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been compromised. Consequently, Anyayahan's acquittal is in order. 41 (emphasis supplied)
The Court again takes this opportunity to emphasize that the presence of the three witnesses required by Sec. 21 is precisely to protect and guard against the pernicious practice of policemen in planting evidence. Without the insulating presence of the three witnesses during the seizure and marking of the drugs, the evils of switching, "planting" or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of R.A. No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the seized drugs that were evidence of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of accused-appellant. 42
The buy-bust team must secure the presence of the three (3) insulating witnesses (elected official, media and DOJ), and the prosecution must prove such presence, not only during the inventory and photographing but likewise at the time of and at or near the intended place of confiscation and seizure of the subject drugs. 43
The prosecution should be reminded that the Chain of Custody Implementing Rules and Regulations require that the apprehending officers do not simply mention a justifiable ground, but also clearly state this ground in their sworn affidavit, coupled with a statement on the steps they took to preserve the integrity of the seized items. 44
In this case, nowhere in the testimony or affidavit of the arresting officers was it shown that efforts were made to contact a representative from the DOJ. As to the media representative and barangay official, they were present only during the inventory and photography of the seized items.
The Court has reminded anew that the prosecution has the duty to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, each and every element of the crime charged. In illegal drugs cases, this includes proving faithful compliance with Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, being fundamental to establishing the element of corpus delicti. In the course of proving such compliance before the trial courts, prosecutors must have the initiative to not only acknowledge, but also justify, any perceived deviations from the procedural requirements of Sec. 21. 45 Strict adherence to Sec. 21 is required where the quantity of illegal drugs seized is miniscule, since it is highly susceptible to planting, tampering or alteration as evidence.
"Compliance with the guidelines on the preservation of the chain of custody of the dangerous drugs subject of a prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs must be clearly and convincingly established by the State. Any lapse in the chain of custody must be affirmatively explained by the Prosecution; otherwise, the chain of custody will be held to be broken and insufficient to support a conviction of the accused. The presumption of regularity of the performance of official duty in favor of the arresting officers cannot prevail over the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused." 46
In the recent case of People v. Lim, 47 the Court held that in order to weed out early on from the courts' already congested docket any orchestrated or poorly built up drug-related cases, the following should henceforth be enforced as a mandatory policy:
1. In the sworn statements/affidavits, the apprehending/seizing officers must state their compliance with the requirements of Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, and its IRR.
2. In case of non-observance of the provision, the apprehending/seizing officers must state the justification or explanation therefor as well as the steps they have taken in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized/confiscated items.
3. If there is no justification or explanation expressly declared in the sworn statements or affidavits, the investigating fiscal must not immediately file the case before the court. Instead, he or she must refer the case for further preliminary investigation in order to determine the (non) existence of probable cause. SDHTEC
4. If the investigating fiscal filed the case despite such absence, the court may exercise its discretion to either refuse to issue a commitment order (or warrant of arrest) or dismiss the case outright for lack of probable cause in accordance with Section 5, Rule 112, Rules of Court. 48 (citation omitted)
For failure of the prosecution to prove as a fact any justifiable reason for non-compliance with Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR, appellant must be acquitted of the crime charged.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated January 12, 2018 of the Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01611 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant Ma. Requesa C. Bernal is hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. She is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless she is confined for any other lawful cause.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections and Acting Superintendent of the Davao Prison and Penal Farm/Correctional Institution for Women-Mindanao 49 are ORDERED to implement this decision and inform this Court of the date of the actual release from confinement of the accused-appellant within five (5) days from receipt hereof.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. CA rollo, pp. 82-90; penned by Associate Justice Edgardo T. Lloren with Associate Justices Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas and Walter S. Ong, concurring.
2.Id. at 34-47; penned by Presiding Judge Ma. Corazon B. Gaite-Llanderal.
3. Records, p. 1.
4.Id. at 109-122.
5.Id. at 25.
6. TSN, November 13, 2012 proceedings.
7. TSN, October 3, 2014 proceedings.
8. TSN, April 20, 2015 proceedings.
9. TSN, August 3, 2015 proceedings.
10. TSN, July 25, 2016 proceedings.
11. TSN, January 26, 2016 proceedings.
12.Supra note 8 at 3.
13. Supra note 7 at 19.
14. Records, p. 12.
15. PNP Chemistry Report No. D-306-2011; records, p. 6.
16. Supra note 11 at 7.
17. Id.
18. Id.
19. Supra note 10 at 7.
20. Id. at 11-12.
21. Id. at 14-15.
22. CA rollo, p. 44.
23. Id. at 45.
24. Id. at 46.
25. CA rollo, pp. 46-47; records, pp. 121-122.
26. Rollo, pp. 9-10; CA Decision.
27. Rollo, p. 31.
28. Id. at 33.
29. CA rollo, pp. 64-66 and 71-74.
30. CA rollo, pp. 66-71.
31. People v. Mirondo, 771 Phil. 345, 356 (2015); citing People v. De la Cruz, 591 Phil. 259, 269 (2008).
32. People v. Alvarado, G.R. No. 234048, April 23, 2018, citing People v. Saragena, G.R. No. 210677, August 23, 2017, 837 SCRA 529, 560-561.
33. People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 230 (2008), citing People v. Jocson, 565 Phil. 303, 309 (2007).
34. Id. citing CONSTITUTION (1987), Art. III, Sec. 12 (1).
35. Id. citing CONSTITUTION (1987), Art. III, Sec. 14 (2).
36. Records, p. 14.
37. 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.
38. See Sec. 21 (a), Article II of the IRR of RA 9165. See also People v. Ceralde, G.R. No. 228894, August 7, 2017, 834 SCRA 613, 624-625.
39. Anyayahan v. People, G.R. No. 229787, June 20, 2018, citing People v. Goco, 797 Phil. 433, 443 (2016).
40. Id.
41. Id.; citing People v. Macapundag, G.R. No. 225965, March 13, 2017, 820 SCRA 204, 215.
42. Supra note 39; citing People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749, 764 (2014).
43. People v. Ga-a, G.R. No. 222559, June 6, 2018.
44. Supra note 32 at 560.
45. Supra, note 39.
46. People v. Reyes, 797 Phil. 671, 673 (2016).
47. G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
48. Id.
49. Rollo, p. 20.