FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252350. March 24, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. LEONARDO BERSABA JR. y ARBES @ "PLOK" and MARICRIS MALALUAN y OSIANA @ "MAKIS", accused,
LEONARDO BERSABA JR. y ARBES @ "PLOK", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 24, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252350 (People of the Philippines v. Leonardo Bersaba Jr. y Arbes @ "Plok" and Maricris Malaluan y Osiana @ "Makis," accused, Leonardo Bersaba Jr. y Arbes @ "Plok," accused-appellant). — This is an appeal 1 seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision 2 dated September 26, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10307. The assailed Decision of the CA affirmed the Joint Decision 3 dated October 24, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Batangas City, Branch 84, finding accused-appellant Leonardo Bersaba, Jr. y Arbes (Bersaba, Jr.) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
Facts of the Case
The Informations filed against Bersaba, Jr. and Maricris Malaluan y Osiana (Malaluan) read as follows:
Criminal Case No. 20139
That on or about August 14, 2015 at around 7:45 in the evening at Sitio Puyo, Brgy. Sta. Clara, Batangas City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there knowingly, willfully, and criminally sell or dispense one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.10 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, more commonly known as "Shabu," a dangerous drug, which is a clear violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4 (Emphasis in the original)
Criminal Case No. 20140
That on or about August 14, 2015 at around 7:45 in the evening at Sitio Puyo, Brgy. Sta. Clara, Batangas City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, in the proximate company of at least two (2) persons, not being authorized by law, did then and there knowingly, willfully and criminally possess or have under his custody and control two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, more commonly known as shabu, a dangerous drug, with an aggregate weight of 0.20 gram, which is a clear violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
Criminal Case No. 20142
That on or about August 14, 2015 at around 7:45 in the evening at Sitio Puyo, Brgy. Sta. Clara, Batangas City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused [Malaluan], in the proximate company of at least two (2) persons, not being authorized by law, did then and there knowingly, willfully and criminally possess or have under his (sic) custody and control two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, more commonly known as shabu, a dangerous drug, with an aggregate weight of 0.19 gram, which is a clear violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
Bersaba, Jr. pleaded not guilty to the crime charged against him. 7 Trial on the merits then ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution presented: (a) PO1 John Kenneth Bay (PO1 Bay); (b) PO3 Joryel Borbon Alo (PO3 Alo); (c) PO3 Isagani H. Lara (PO3 Lara); and (d) PO1 Alberto Bombales, Jr. (PO1 Bombales, Jr.) while the parties stipulated to dispense with the testimonies of: (a) Chief of Police Danilo Mendoza; (b) PO1 Manjares; (c) Police Senior Inspector Herminia Llacuna (PSI Llacuna); and (d) PO2 Joel Barcelona (PO2 Barcelona). 8
The prosecution's evidence established that on August 14, 2015 at 5:20 p.m., PO1 Bay received a tip from a confidential informant (CI) or "asset" via cell phone call that an alias Plok is selling illegal drugs. PO1 Bay instructed the CI to proceed to the Batangas Police Station. PO1 Bay then got a P500.00-bill and marked it with his initials, "JKB." While in the Batangas City Police Station, the CI texted alias Plok for the purchase of shabu. After coordinating with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Authority about the planned buy-bust operation, the buy-bust team — composed of PO1 Bay, PO3 Alo, and PO3 Lara — and the CI boarded a Toyota Revo and proceeded to the Sta. Clara Barangay Hall. There, CI called alias Plok to inform the latter that the CI was near the "putol na tulay" 9 across Sitio Puyo. Upon their arrival at the "putol na tulay," PO1 Bay handed the CI the P500.00-bill. The CI alighted the car and waited for alias Plok in front of the Toyota Revo while the buy-bust team stayed inside the vehicle. Within 10 minutes from the time of their arrival, one male and two female individuals arrived. The buy-bust team, situated two to three meters away from the CI, saw the latter hand over the P500.00-bill to alias Plok. Thereafter, alias Plok retrieved a sachet from his right pocket and handed it over to the CI. The CI executed the pre-arranged signal of lighting a cigarette, which prompted the buy-bust team to alight the car and approach the CI. PO1 Bay approached the CI, to get the sachet the CI purchased from Bersaba, Jr. before PO1 Bay arrested Bersaba, Jr. 10 PO3 Alo arrested the female minor, AAA, 11 because she was holding a transparent plastic case containing four transparent plastic sachets 12 while PO3 Lara arrested Malaluan. 13
PO1 Bay confiscated from Bersaba, Jr.'s right hand the P500.00-bill handed to him by the CI and two plastic sachets. He marked the sachet sold as "JKB 1" while the two sachets recovered from Bersaba, Jr. were marked as "JKB 2" and "JKB 3." 14
PO3 Alo took the four sachets of shabu, which AAA took out of her pocket after she was handcuffed. 15 He marked the four sachets he confiscated from AAA as "JBA1" to "JBA4." 16
PO3 Lara marked the two sachets he saw Malaluan throw behind her as "IHL 1" and "IHL 2." 17
Photographs 18 were taken while marking was done at the scene of the crime. The buy-bust team, Bersaba, Jr., Malaluan, and AAA boarded the Toyota Revo and went to Sta. Clara Barangay Hall where the Certificate of Inventory 19 and Chain of Custody Form 20 were prepared. Inventory was conducted at Sta. Clara Barangay Hall upon the arrival of the DOJ and media representatives, Rodel A. Espina and Benedicto O. Griño, respectively. Pictures 21 were likewise taken at the barangay hall during the conduct of the inventory. The DOJ and media representatives, along with an elected public official (Kagawad Danilo C. Arago), signed the Certificate of Inventory. The items retrieved by PO1 Bay, PO3 Lara, and PO3 Alo were then turned over to the Investigating Officer, PO1 Bombales. Thereafter, PO1 Bombales, the buy-bust team, Bersaba, Jr., Malaluan, and AAA went to the Batangas City Police Station where a Booking Sheet/Arrest Report 22 was prepared and a joint affidavit 23 was executed. PO1 Bombales prepared a Spot Report, 24 Request for Laboratory Examination, 25 and Request for Drug Test Examination. 26 PO1 Bombales and the three accused proceeded to the crime laboratory in Camp Miguel Malvar. There, PO1 Bombales handed over the requests and items seized to PO2 Manjares, the duty receiving clerk of the crime laboratory. 27 The accused were made to undergo drug testing at the crime laboratory before being escorted to the hospital for a medical examination. 28
On August 15, 2015 at 6:00 a.m., PO2 Manjares turned over the drugs seized to PSI Llacuna for drug examination. PSI Llacuna's examination of the items seized from all the accused yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, which she reduced to writing in Chemistry Report No. BD-618-2015. 29 PSI Llacuna then surrendered custody over the seized items to PO2 Barcelona for safe keeping. It was PO2 Barcelona who handed over the seized items to the RTC's Branch Clerk of Court. 30
Version of the Defense
The defense presented accused Bersaba, Jr. and Malaluan and a certain Jackson Garcia (Garcia). 31
According to the defense, all three accused were inside the house of a certain Inoy Malaluan (Inoy) on August 14, 2015. Inoy is the father of accused Malaluan and a certain Cris Mark 32 Malaluan (Cris Mark). The lower portion of the house was divided into two sections by a curtain — the living room, where Malaluan and her family lived, and the dining area, where Cris Mark stayed. The only source of ingress/egress was the living room's door. 33
Around 4:00 p.m., Bersaba, Jr., Cris Mark, and Cris Mark's girlfriend (AAA) were in the dining area having merienda while Malaluan was in the living room with Garcia, an electrician who was repairing the living room's switch. Suddenly, PO1 Bay kicked the house's door open and ordered everyone to stay where they were ("walang kikilos"). 34 Four to five men (including PO1 Bay) entered the house. One of these men proceeded to the dining area, poked a gun at Bersaba, Jr., pushed him against the wall and asked him if he knew a certain Omar Lumanglas. PO1 Bay also called Malaluan to ask if she knew an Omar Lumanglas. When Bersaba, Jr. and Malaluan denied knowing a person by that name, the men searched the house. Finding nothing, PO1 Bay told the people inside the house that they will be taken to the police station to give their statements or else they will be charged with a crime. Since Cris Mark was afflicted with polio on both feet, Bersaba, Jr. carried him on his back. Garcia was excused from going to the police station since his mother explained to the police that Garcia was just there to repair the switch of the house. 35
Cris Mark, Bersaba, Jr., Malaluan, and PO1 Bay boarded a tricycle driven by Garcia's brother and went to the police station. It was only during the tricycle ride that Bersaba, Jr. discovered the men to be police officers. At the police station, they were initially sent to the second floor's office before they were told to go back downstairs. Thereafter, they boarded a van and were brought to "putol na tulay" where their pictures were taken. Upon returning to the police station, PO1 Bay told them to call their source. Insisting that they did not have a source, they did not call anybody. Bersaba, Jr. saw AAA when they went out of the room where they stayed. It was then that he heard a policeman mention Cris Mark's release from custody because of his physical disability and that whatever charges were to be filed against Cris Mark will be filed against AAA instead. 36
Bersaba, Jr., and Malaluan were brought again to the "putol na tulay" — this time with AAA — where another set of pictures were taken. They were brought to the Barangay Hall after their pictures were taken. Afterwards, they were tested for drugs, taken to the hospital, then detained at the police station's jail. The accused only came to know of the criminal case filed against them when a piece of paper was handed over to each of them inside the jail by a cellmate. 37
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On October 24, 2017, the RTC found Bersaba, Jr. guilty of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs while Malaluan was acquitted for failure of the prosecution to establish her guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 20139, the Court finds accused Leonardo Bersaba[,] Jr. y Arbes @ "Plok" GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 (sale of dangerous drugs) and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a FINE of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php500,000.00);
2. In Criminal Case No. 20140, the Court finds accused Leonardo Bersaba[,] Jr. y Arbes @ "Plok" GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 (possession of dangerous drugs) and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY, as minimum, to THIRTEEN (13) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY, as maximum, and to pay a FINE of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php300,000.00); and
3. In Criminal Case No. 20142, accused Maricris Malaluan y Osiana @ "Makis" is ACQUITTED of the charge of violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 (possession of dangerous drugs), for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
xxx xxx xxx
SO ORDERED. 38 (Emphasis in the original)
The RTC ruled that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs against Bersaba, Jr. The CI, acting as the poseur-buyer, bought from Bersaba, Jr. a sachet of shabu worth P500.00 within the view of PO1 Bay, PO3 Alo, and PO3 Lara — the latter situated two to three meters away from the exchange. After the execution of the pre-arranged signal, the buy-bust team arrested Bersaba, Jr., Malaluan, and AAA; frisked them; and marked the sachets of shabu retrieved either from their person or immediately within their vicinity. 39
The RTC declared that the identity of the evidence was likewise established through an unbroken chain of custody over the dangerous drugs. The prosecution proved that all those who handled the evidence from their recovery to their submission to the court were accounted for. As against Bersaba, Jr.'s self-serving alibi, the RTC gave more weight to the prosecution's evidence because of the presumption of regularity in the performance of the police's official duties. 40
However, the RTC acquitted Malaluan. The trial court found PO3 Lara's testimony incredible and explained that "it [is] hard to believe that the accused [Malaluan] would throw the drugs in her possession in front of the policemen who was about to arrest her companion and offered herself to be caught by the authorities." 41
Aggrieved, Bersaba, Jr. appealed his conviction to the CA. In his Brief, 42 Bersaba, Jr. alleged that the prosecution failed to explain why marking was not done in the presence of the required insulating witnesses and why inventory was not simultaneously done with marking at the scene of the crime. Since the supposed transaction was a planned operation, the buy-bust team had more than ample time to secure the presence of the insulating witnesses prior to proceeding to the "putol na tulay." Bersaba, Jr. maintained that the details of the operation must be clearly laid out especially since the alleged buy-bust operations involved miniscule amounts of dangerous drugs. He averred that the presumption of an accused's innocence prevails over the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. 43
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), appearing for the prosecution, stated that the prosecution has proven all the elements of sale and possession of illegal drugs with moral certainty. Inventory was justifiably done at Barangay Hall as Section 21 (a) of R.A. 9165's Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) allowed the conduct of inventory at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending officer/team. For failure to prove that the buy-bust team was induced by any ill-motive to falsely accuse him of illegally selling dangerous drugs, the police officers' testimonies were properly given full faith and credit since they are presumed to have regularly performed their duties. 44
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
In its Decision 45 dated September 26, 2019, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision. Citing the consistent testimonies of PO1 Bay, PO3 Alo, and PO3 Lara, the appellate found that the prosecution was able to establish the elements of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. 46
The CA debunked Bersaba, Jr.'s claim that the requisites under Section 21 of R.A. 9165 were not properly followed. The CA enumerated the four links to the chain of custody and found that each link was properly established. In the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, the presumption of regularity in the performance of one's duties must prevail. 47
Undeterred, Bersaba, Jr. filed a Notice of Appeal. 48 Both the OSG and Bersaba, Jr. manifested that they will no longer file any supplemental brief. 49
Issue
The sole issue to be determined is whether the prosecution established Bersaba, Jr.'s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for illegal sale and possession of prohibited drugs under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. 9165, respectively.
Ruling of the Court
The appeal is meritorious.
To successfully prosecute illegal sale of prohibited drugs: (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 must be established. On the other hand, the elements in the prosecution for the crime of illegal possession of prohibited drugs are: (1) the accused is in possession of the object identified as a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. 50
In both cases of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, the dangerous drug seized from the accused constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. Thus, it is of utmost importance that the integrity and identity of the seized drugs must be shown to have been duly preserved. "The chain of custody rule performs this function as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed." 51
Here, the validity of the buy-bust operation is doubtful. The non-presentation of the poseur-buyer is fatal to the cause of the prosecution. In People v. Amin, 52 this Court reiterated the importance of the poseur-buyer's testimony to ensure that the suspect is arrested inflagrante delicto. While this Court is aware of the need to hide the confidential informant's identity, the confidential informant's testimony becomes imperative when: (1) he/she is the poseur-buyer; and (2) the buy-bust team failed to witness the transaction. 53
The buy-bust team, composed of PO1 Bay, PO3 Alo, and PO3 Lara, testified that they personally witnessed the sale of shabu between the CI and Bersaba, Jr. However, the inconsistencies in their testimonies cast doubt as to the legitimacy of the buy-bust operation. First, PO1 Bay averred that the transaction took place between one to three meters from the hood of the Toyota Revo 54 while PO3 Alo testified that the distance between the Toyota Revo to the CI and Bersaba, Jr. was six meters away. 55Second, PO1 Bay testified that the CI executed the pre-arranged signal of lighting a cigarette 56 whereas PO3 Alo claimed that the pre-arranged signal executed was the CI's removal of his cap. 57Third, if this Court were to believe that the buy-bust team clearly saw the transaction between the CI and Bersaba, Jr., the buy-bust team would not have waited for the CI to execute the pre-arranged signal. Fourth, PO1 Bay alleged that they did not hear the CI and Bersaba, Jr. talking while PO3 Lara categorically said that Bersaba, Jr. asked the CI, "[a]san na yung pambili mo?" 58
The prosecution also failed to explain how they were able to clearly see the transaction when the sale occurred along an unfinished bridge ("putol na tulay") at past 7:00 p.m. There was no explanation on how the place was illuminated. The testimonies of the buy-bust team even varied as to whether the park lights of the Toyota Revo turned on or off. 59 Moreover, it is contrary to human logic that Bersaba, Jr., after seeing men alight from the car after selling dangerous drugs, made no reaction whatsoever when these unidentified men calmly walked towards them and retrieved the sachet allegedly sold to the CI before arresting him. 60
Even if this Court were to consider PO1 Bay's testimony alone, his testimony hardly inspires belief as to the events that occurred. According to PO1 Bay, Bersaba, Jr. received the P500.00 bill with his right hand and used the same hand to retrieve the sachet sold to the CI. Although PO1 Bay clearly saw Bersaba, Jr.: (1) take one sachet of shabu from his right pocket; and (2) hand over that sachet to the CI, he did not see whether Bersaba, Jr. also retrieved two more sachets of shabu. Surprisingly, after arresting Bersaba, Jr., PO1 Bay retrieved from Bersaba, Jr.'s right hand two sachets of shabu and the P500.00-bill. 61 Note that the joint affidavit 62 executed by the buy-bust team clearly stated that they were inside the Toyota Revo when they clearly saw ("kitang kita") 63 Bersaba, Jr. take one piece of transparent sachet containing shabu from his right pocket. 64 A cloud of doubt arises as to how the two sachets of shabu — subject of the criminal case for illegal possession of dangerous drugs — came from Bersaba, Jr.'s possession. It was not clear if the police subjected him to a warrantless search after his arrest to confiscate the two sachets from Bersaba, Jr.'s right hand after PO1 Bay frisked him.
Also, a cursory look at the P500-bill 65 paid by the CI shows that the marking, "JKB," was so prominently placed on the forehead of Ninoy Aquino, Jr.'s picture that it would alert a drug seller that the P500-bill was buy-bust money.
Aside from the prosecution's failure to prove the existence of an actual buy-bust operation, the prosecution also failed to comply with the procedural requirements under R.A. 9165, as amended by R.A. 10640.
An accused shall only be convicted of the crime charged once it has been established with "certainty that the drugs examined and presented in court were the very ones seized." To satisfy this requirement, the procedure under Section 21 of R.A. 9165 must be complied with. This provision was later amended by R.A. 10640 which took effect in 2014. One of the amendments made in R.A. 10640 — particularly in Section 1 thereof — was the addition of the clause "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." This was taken from the IRR of R.A. 9165.
The prosecution failed to show that the arresting officers strictly complied with the procedure stated in Section 1 of R.A. No. 10640. Neither did it justify the arresting officers' non-compliance.
It is undisputed that physical inventory was not immediately done at the place of arrest in the presence of the required witnesses. Although R.A. 10640 incorporated the provision in R.A. 9165's IRR allowing for the conduct of physical inventory and photograph-taking "at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable," such provision does not give the buy-bust team carte blanche to choose where to conduct the physical inventory. In People v. Musor, 66 this Court explained that inventory and taking photographs may be done at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending officer/team only when inventory and photograph-taking were not practicable at the place of the buy-bust operation. 67
In the absence of sufficient justification, marking, inventory, and taking photographs must be done "immediately after seizure and confiscation" 68 — contemplating that the same be conducted at the place of apprehension. 69 "[Such] 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." 70 Thus, for failure to conduct the inventory at the place of arrest, the seized items were evidently exposed to possible switching, planting, and contamination.
The buy-bust team should have also secured the necessary witnesses to accompany them to the buy-bust operation. This is especially true here, since PO3 Lara admitted that the barangay officials of Sta. Clara knew that the buy-bust team will be conducting a buy-bust operation in the area. 71 This was also evidenced by a blotter entry 72 dated August 14, 2015 at 7:20 p.m. by Barangay Tanod Wilfredo M. Falquera.
Furthermore, the Certificate of Inventory 73 shows that it was not signed by Bersaba, Jr. or by his counsel or representative, in violation of the requirement under Section 21 (1) of R.A. 9165, as amended and its IRR.
The prosecution also failed to establish the third and fourth links to the chain of custody. The third link refers to the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination while the fourth link pertains to the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. 74
The chain of custody is established by testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered in 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. 75
Here, the testimonies of PO2 Manjares (duty receiving clerk of the crime laboratory) and PO2 Barcelona (officer who turned received the items from PSI Llacuna and surrendered the same to the trial court) failed to comply with the abovestated conditions. There was no stipulation as to how: (1) PO2 Manjares kept the seized items from the time he received it on August 14, 2015 at 11:20 p.m. to the time he turned them over to PSI Llacuna on August 15, 2015 at 6:00 a.m.; and (2) PO2 Barcelona stored the seized items he received from PSI Llacuna from August 15, 2015 at 10:05 a.m. to the time he turned the same over to the court on September 21, 2015 at 9:23 a.m.
The prosecution's sweeping guarantees as to the identity and integrity of the seized drug will not secure a conviction. 76 "While law enforcers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties, this presumption cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent and it cannot by itself constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of regularity is merely just that — a mere presumption disputable by contrary proof and which when challenged by evidence cannot be regarded as binding truth." 77
All told, the failure to prove the existence of a legitimate buy-bust operation, coupled with the lapses to preserve the identity and integrity of the drugs allegedly seized from Bersaba, Jr., fall short of the required evidence to prove the guilt of Bersaba, Jr. beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. 9165.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated September 26, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10307 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Leonardo Bersaba, Jr. y Arbes @ "Plok" is ACQUITTED and is ORDERED to be IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless he is being lawfully held for another cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The said Director General is DIRECTED to report the action taken to this Court, 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.Rollo, p. 22.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Edwin D. Sorongon and Geraldine C. Fiel-Maracaraig; id. at 3-20.
3. Penned by Presiding Judge Dorcas P. Ferriols-Perez; CA rollo, pp. 60-65-A.
4. Records, p. 1.
5. CA rollo, p. 60-A.
6.Id.
7. Records, pp. 26-26-A.
8. CA rollo, p. 61.
9. TSN dated January 20, 2016, p. 11.
10.Id. at 6-17.
11. To maintain the privacy of the minor offender's name, and since the criminal case filed against her was transferred to the Family Court of Batangas City, this Court shall hereinafter refer to her as AAA.
12. TSN dated February 19, 2016, pp. 12-13.
13. TSN dated September 16, 2016, p. 14.
14. TSN dated January 20, 2016, pp. 16-17.
15. TSN dated February 19, 2016, pp. 12-13.
16.Id. at 17.
17. TSN dated September 16, 2016, pp. 14-15.
18. Records, pp. 49-50.
19.Id. at 47.
20.Id. at 48.
21.Id. at 51-52.
22.Id. at 19.
23.Id. at 4-4-A.
24.Id. at 7.
25.Id. at 5.
26.Id. at 8.
27. TSN dated June 22, 2016, p. 7.
28. TSN dated March 23, 2017, pp. 21-29.
29. Records, pp. 46-46-A.
30. CA rollo, pp. 61-A-62.
31.Id. at 62.
32. Also referred to as Crismark or Crismar.
33. TSN dated July 21, 2017, pp. 5-7.
34. TSN dated September 11, 2017, p. 21.
35. TSN dated July 21, 2017, pp. 5-11; TSN dated September 6, 2017, pp. 5-12, 22-27.
36.Id. at 11-14; TSN dated September 6, 2017, pp 5-11.
37.Id. at 14-15; TSN dated September 6, 2017, pp. 28-31.
38. CA rollo, pp. 65-65-A.
39.Id. at 62-A-63.
40.Id. at 63-63-A.
41.Id. at 64.
42.Id. at 42-56.
43.Id. at 48-56.
44.Id. at 85-94.
45.Supra note 2.
46.Rollo, pp. 7-20.
47.Id. at 16-20.
48.Id. at 22.
49.Id. at 32-33, 36-37.
50.People v. Opiana, 750 Phil. 140, 147 (2015).
51.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017), citing Fajardo v. People, 691 Phil. 752, 758-759 (2012).
52. 803 Phil. 557 (2017).
53.Id. at 565.
54. TSN dated January 20, 2016, pp. 12-13.
55. TSN dated February 19, 2016, p. 9.
56. TSN dated January 20, 2016, p. 14.
57. TSN dated February 19, 2016, p. 11.
58. TSN dated September 16, 2016, p. 13.
59. TSN dated January 20, 2016, p. 57; TSN dated February 19, 2016, p. 47.
60.Id. at 48-49; TSN dated February 19, 2016, p. 52.
61.Id. at 16.
62. Records, p. 4
63.Id.
64.Id.
65.Id. at 52.
66. G.R. No. 231843, November 7, 2018.
67.Id.
68.Id.; People v. Manabat, G.R. No. 242947, July 17, 2019; People v. Tomawis, 830 Phil. 385, 404-405 (2018).
69.Id.
70.Id.
71. TSN dated September 16, 2016, p. 39.
72. Records, p. 9.
73.Id. at 14.
74.People v. Gayoso, 808 Phil. 19, 31 (2017), citing People v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134, 144-145 (2010).
75.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 30-31 (2017), citing Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 587 (2008).
76.People v. Hementiza, 807 Phil. 1017, 1033 (2017).
77.Id. at 1033-1034.