THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 237213. November 10, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ACHMED BUMATAY y BESINAL, AND JULIUS NOGOY y REBOROSO, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 10, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 237213 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, v. ACHMED BUMATAY y BESINAL, AND JULIUS NOGOY y REBOROSO, accused-appellants). — To sustain a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the exact identity of the illicit drug seized must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Strict compliance with the chain of custody rule must also be observed, especially when the quantity of the dangerous drugs are minuscule.
This Court resolves the appeals 1 filed by Achmed Bumatay (Bumatay) and Julius Nogoy (Nogoy) from the Court of Appeals' Decision 2 and Resolution 3 affirming their conviction of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The Information reads:
That on or about AUGUST 2, 2011, in the municipality of Lal-lo, province of Cagayan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, without any legal authority thereof, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver, dispense, give away to another and transport three (3) pieces of heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing crystalline substance which gave POSITIVE results to the tests for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, locally known as SHABU, weighing an aggregate of 0.16 gram to a poseur buyer of the elements of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) stationed in Tuguegarao, Cagayan, said accused knowing fully well and aware that it is prohibited for any person to sell, deliver, dispense, give away to another or transport any dangerous drugs regardless of the quantity or purity thereof, unless authorized by law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
Bumatay and Nogoy both pleaded not guilty during their arraignment. Trial then ensued. 5
The prosecution presented Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency agents Intelligence Officer I Joseph Sacolles (IO1 Sacolles), IO1 Vivien Molina (IO1 Molina), and Philippine National Police Forensic Chemical Officer Police Senior Inspector James Bad-e (PS/Insp. Bad-e) as witnesses. 6
The witnesses alleged that on August 2, 2011, they received a tip from a confidential informant that a certain "alias Achmed" was selling drugs in Aparri, Cagayan. 7 A buy-bust team was then formed with IO1 Sacolles as poseur buyer and IO1 Molina as arresting officer. IO1 Sacolles received two marked P500 and two marked P1,000 bills as buy-bust money. The confidential informant then called Bumatay who "agreed to bring the 'stock' in Lal-lo, Cagayan." 8
The buy-bust team arrived in Lal-lo at around 4:00 p.m. and allegedly informed the officers in Lal-lo Police Station about the operation. The confidential informant and IO1 Sacolles waited for their suspect in front of Chat Hair Salon, with their backup situated nearby. 9
At 4:45 p.m., Bumatay and Nogoy arrived onboard a motorcycle. The confidential informant introduced them to IO1 Sacolles and told Bumatay that they were buying P3,000.00 worth of shabu. 10 Bumatay then handed three heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance to IO1 Sacolles. 11 When Nogoy asked IO1 Sacolles for the payment, the latter gave Nogoy the marked money. IO1 Sacolles then signaled the rest of the team to move in. 12
IO1 Sacolles arrested and searched Bumatay. Meanwhile, IO1 Molina arrested and searched Nogoy, and recovered the buy-bust money and a cellphone. The team then brought Bumatay and Nogoy to the Lal-lo Police Station, which was less than 10 meters from Chat Hair Salon. 13
Inside the police station, IO1 Sacolles turned over the seized items to IO1 Mary Jane Gaayon (IO1 Gaayon). IO1 Sacolles then took the plastic sachets back and marked them with his initials and the date of seizure. He then prepared the inventory in the presence of Barangay Chairperson Clarissa S. Dupaya (Dupaya) and media representative and Rodel Ordillos (Ordillos). 14 IO1 Maynard Agleham took photographs of the marking and inventory, both accused, and the seized items. 15
IO1 Sacolles then brought the three plastic sachets and the request for laboratory examination to the Philippine National Police Regional Crime Laboratory for examination. PS/Insp. Bad-e received the items and conducted the examination, and found that all three sachets contained shabu. After examination, PS/Insp. Bad-e gave the sachets to evidence custodian Senior Police Officer II Edison Taladtad (SPO2 Taladtad) who kept the items until presented in court. 16
For their defense, Bumatay and Nogoy denied that the buy-bust operation took place. They maintained that on August 2, 2011, they were on their way to Gattaran, Cagayan to purchase pigs for Bumatay's parents who were meat vendors when a white Mitsubishi Adventure blocked their way. 17 Several armed persons alighted therefrom. They pointed their firearms at Bumatay and Nogoy while another person, who turned out to be IO1 Molina, frisked Bumatay and confiscated his wallet. She then asked him, "Where is the shabu?"18 Bumatay denied having any shabu but IO1 Molina handcuffed him and returned his wallet. Bumatay and Nogoy were then brought to the police station. 19
Upon arriving at the police station, three plastic sachets were already placed on the table. 20 The accused were then photographed and brought to Camp Adduru in Tuguegarao City. 21
In its Decision, 22 the Regional Trial Court found Bumatay and Nogoy guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. It lent credence to the narration of events offered by the prosecution and emphasized that the accused's defense of denial and frame-up was not sufficient to rebut the prosecution's evidence. 23
The dispositive portion of the trial court's Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, this Court finds both accused, Achmed Bumatay y Besinal and Julius Nogoy y Reboroso, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and hereby sentences them to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
Costs of suit to be paid by both accused.
SO ORDERED. 24 (Emphasis in the original)
Bumatay and Nogoy appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's Decision. 25 The Court of Appeals found that there was sufficient compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 for the requisite chain of custody. The dispositive portion of this assailed Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The November 26, 2013 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Aparri, Cagayan, Branch 6, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.26 (Emphasis in the original)
On February 15, 2017, Bumatay filed his Notice of Appeal. 27 Meanwhile on March 10, 2017, Nogoy moved for the reconsideration of the Court of Appeals' Decision, 28 which the Court of Appeals subsequently denied. 29 Nogoy then manifested that he would be appealing the Court of Appeal's Decision and that the Public Attorney's Office-Special and Appealed Cases Service would be appearing as counsel on his behalf. 30 The Court of Appeals noted Bumatay and Nogoy's notices of appeal and forwarded the records of the case to this Court. 31
In its March 12, 2018 Resolution, this Court noted the records forwarded by the Court of Appeals and allowed the parties to file their respective supplemental briefs. 32 Both parties manifested that their respective appellate briefs sufficiently discussed their positions. 33 This Court noted the parties' Manifestations in its August 15, 2018 Resolution. 34
The issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not accused-appellants Achmed Bumatay y Besinal and Julius Nogoy y Reboroso are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
This Court acquits accused-appellants.
I
The records show that the arresting officers failed to comply with the mandatory requirements for handling illegal drugs allegedly seized from a buy-bust operation, as provided in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. This failure by the arresting officers casts reasonable doubt upon the guilt of accused-appellants, as it puts the existence of the corpus delicti in question.
For a conviction of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) the identities of the buyer, seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it. 35
To sustain a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, People v. Suan36 requires that the exact identity of the dangerous drug seized from the accused be proven beyond reasonable doubt:
In prosecutions involving narcotics, the narcotic substance itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Of paramount importance therefore in these cases is that the identity of the dangerous drug be likewise established beyond reasonable doubt. 37 (Citation omitted)
To prove identity of the corpus delicti, Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 provides for the requirements of the chain of custody regarding confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered drugs and/or drug paraphernalia. Since the crime was allegedly committed prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No. 10640, which amended Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, the provision, as originally enacted, is applicable.
Section 21 of Republic Act 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 [Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency] 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, and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. (Emphasis supplied)
This Court has further clarified the four links that must be established in proving the chain of custody:
The links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation, are as follows: (1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turn over of the illegal drug seized to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turn over and submission of the illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court. 38 (Citation omitted)
Villasana v. People, 39 citing Valencia v. People, 40 clarified that "each link in the chain of custody . . . must be accounted for to show that there was no 'tampering, alteration, or substitution either by accident or otherwise.'" 41People v. Goco42 further elaborated on the prosecution's burden:
[T]he prosecution must present testimonies about every link in the chain, in such a way that every person who touched the illegal drugs would describe how and from whom they were received, where they were and what happened to them while in his or her possession, the condition in which he or she received them, and their condition upon delivery. The witnesses must describe the precautions taken to ensure that there was no change in the condition of the illegal drugs and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possessed the said items. 43 (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)
Here, the prosecution failed to sufficiently establish the arresting officers' chain of custody over the items allegedly seized from accused-appellants.
For the first link, the physical inventory and photographs of the allegedly seized illegal drugs must be taken immediately after their seizure and confiscation. 44People v. Sultan, 45 citing People v. Que, 46 explained that this logically means that the marking and inventory must be conducted in the same place where accused-appellants were arrested:
Moreover, Section 21 mandates the conduct of inventory and taking of photographs "immediately after seizure and confiscation," which means that these must be done at the place of the arrest. Que explained:
What is critical in drug cases is not the bare conduct of inventory, marking, and photographing. Instead, it is the certainly that the items allegedly taken from the accused retain their integrity, even as they make their way from the accused to an officer effecting the seizure, to an investigating officer, to a forensic chemist, and ultimately, to courts where they are introduced as evidence. . . .
Section 21(1)'s requirements are designed to make the first and second links foolproof. Conducting the inventory and photographing immediately after seizure, exactly where the seizure was done, or at a location as practicably close to it, minimizes, if not eliminates, room for adulteration or the planting of evidence[.] 47 (Emphases supplied, citations omitted)
The arresting officers failed to comply with this requirement when they performed the marking, inventory, and photographing of the evidence in the nearby police station instead of where accused-appellants were arrested and the illegal drugs were allegedly seized. People v. Rivera48 further emphasized the need for inventory to be conducted "immediately after, or at the place of apprehension":
The phrase "immediately after seizure and confiscation" means that the physical inventory and photographing of the drugs were intended by the law to be made immediately after, or at the place of apprehension. It is only when the same is not practicable that the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 allows the inventory and photographing to be done as soon as the buy-bust team reaches the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team. 49 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
The prosecution did not offer any reasonable justification for relocating to the police station to conduct the inventory, instead of doing the same immediately after seizure. The alleged safety and convenience of conducting the inventory at the police station 50 does not justify the apprehending officers' noncompliance in the absence of a clear threat to the operation's safety. 51
In any event, Section 21 (1) of Republic Act No. 9165 also requires the presence of specific witnesses during the physically inventory and the taking of photographs of the seized items: (a) the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel; (b) a representative from the media; (c) the Department of Justice; and (d) any elected public official. These witnesses must be present at the time and place of the arrest and the seizure of evidence.
People v. Corral52 discussed the importance of securing the attendance of all required witnesses to the inventory:
The law further requires that the said inventory and photography be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of [Republic Act No.] 9165 by [Republic Act No.] 10640, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official; or (b) if after the amendment of [Republic Act No.] 9165 by [Republic Act No.] 10640, an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media. The law requires the presence of these witnesses primarily "to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence." 53 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
People v. Tomawis54 also explained why the witnesses should observe the accused's arrest and the evidence's seizure during the operation:
The presence of the witnesses from the [Department of Justice], media, and from public elective office is necessary to protect against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug. Using the language of the Court in People v. Mendoza, without the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the [Department of Justice] and any elected public official 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 [Republic Act 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 subject sachet that was evidence of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused.
The presence of the three witnesses must be secured not only during the inventory but more importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest. It is at this point in which the presence of the three witnesses is most needed, as it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug. If the buy-bust operation is legitimately conducted, the presence of the insulating witnesses would also controvert the usual defense of frame-up as the witnesses would be able to testify that the buy-bust operation and inventory of the seized drugs were done in their presence in accordance with Section 21 of [Republic Act No.] 9165.
The practice of police operatives of not bringing to the intended place of arrest the three witnesses, when they could easily do so — and "calling them in" to the place of inventory to witness the inventory and photographing of the drugs only after the buy-bust operation has already been finished — does not achieve the purpose of the law in having these witnesses prevent or insulate against the planting of drugs.
To restate, the presence of the three witnesses at the time of seizure and confiscation of the drugs must be secured and complied with at the time of the warrantless arrest; such that they are required to be at or near the intended place of the arrest so that they can be ready to witness the inventory and photographing of the seized and confiscated drugs "immediately after seizure and confiscation."55 (Emphases supplied, citations omitted)
Here, only barangay chairperson Dupaya and media representative Ordillos were present during the inventory of the seized illegal drugs. 56Corral's interpretation that "a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official" must be present requires that all three witnesses observe the accused's arrest and the seized items' inventory. 57 Here, the apprehending officers failed to secure the attendance of the required representative from the Department of Justice.
While noncompliance for the requirements of Republic Act No. 9165 may be excused, Que laid out the requirements for "conscionable non-compliance":
In order that there may be conscionable non-compliance, two (2) requisites must be satisfied: first, the prosecution must specifically allege, identify, and prove "justifiable grounds"; second, it must establish that despite non-compliance, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs and/or drug paraphernalia were properly preserved. Satisfying the second requisite demands a showing of positive steps taken to ensure such preservation. Broad justifications and sweeping guarantees will not suffice. 58 (Emphasis supplied)
The buy-bust team failed to offer any justifiable reason for their noncompliance. Chain of custody requirements require strict compliance, particularly when the quantity of dangerous drugs seized from the accused is minuscule. In People v. Señeres, 59 dangerous drugs in quantities as small as 0.87 gram were deemed minuscule, and thus, "highly susceptible to planting, tampering, or alteration." 60 Here, the 0.16 gram of shabu seized from accused-appellants is sufficiently minuscule as to require strict compliance with the chain of custody requirements.
The remaining links in the chain are likewise tainted with considerable defects.
For the second and third links, IO2 Sacolles admitted upon cross-examination that he turned over the sachets of shabu to IO1 Gaayon, the investigating officer. 61 However, IO1 Gaayon was never reflected to have handled the evidence in any of the forms or certifications prepared by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. 62 Neither was her testimony or affidavit offered in the trial court. 63 To repeat, "the prosecution must present testimonies about every link in the chain, in such a way that every person who touched the illegal drugs would describe how and from whom they were received[.]" 64 When IO2 Sacolles was recalled to the witness stand, he contradicted his prior statements regarding turnover to IO1 Gaayon and claimed that he was in possession of the illegal drugs from the time that they were seized up to the time these were submitted for examination to PS/Insp. Bad-e. 65 These inconsistencies cast serious doubt on the integrity of the prosecution's evidence.
Finally, the prosecution failed to account for the transfer of the specimens from the forensic chemist to the trial court. After the laboratory examination, PS/Insp. Bad-e gave the three plastic sachets to the evidence custodian, SPO2 Taladtad, who allegedly kept them until submitted in court. 66 SPO2 Taladtad did not testify for the prosecution. Neither was there any documentary or testimonial evidence as to how the items were kept in his custody nor in what condition the items were in until submitted in court.
This Court has held that "[a]bsent any testimony regarding the management, storage, and preservation of the illegal drug allegedly seized . . . after its qualitative examination, the fourth link in the chain of custody . . . could not be reasonably established." 67 The manner of handling of the specimen before it came to the possession of the forensic chemist and after it left their possession must be determined. 68 The prosecution must likewise show who brought the seized drugs to the trial court from the forensic chemist or evidence custodian. Failure to do so is considered a serious breach of the chain of custody rule. 69
In this case, not only did the prosecution fail to present SPO2 Taladtad as witness but it also failed to bring whoever brought the illegal drugs to the Regional Trial Court. The records are bereft of any evidence showing that precautions were taken to ensure that after the specimen was examined by PS/Insp. Bad-e, there was no change in the condition of the specimen and that there was no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of thereof. 70
It is crucial to establish every link in the chain of custody to preserve the integrity, identity, and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drug. 71 Lack of compliance with any one of the links creates reasonable doubt that the illegal drug seized is the same presented in court. 72
II
The Court of Appeals erred in relying on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency agents. This presumption cannot stand in the face of the blatant disregard of established procedures required in maintaining the chain of custody. People v. Kamad73 provided that:
The presumption [of regularity in the performance of official duty] applies when nothing in the record suggests that the law enforcers deviated from the standard conduct of official duty required by law; where the official act is irregular on its face, the presumption cannot arise. In light of the flagrant lapses we noted, the lower courts were obviously wrong when they relied on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. 74 (Citation omitted)
The plethora of errors in the performance of the chain of custody requirements casts serious doubt on the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti at the center of this case. Due to the prosecution's inability to establish this essential element of the offense beyond reasonable doubt, this Court must acquit the accused-appellants.
III
People v. Holgado75 discussed the need for strictest compliance with chain of custody requirements when prosecuting violations involving minuscule amounts of dangerous drugs:
While the min[u]scule amount of narcotics seized is by itself not a ground for acquittal, this circumstance underscores the need for more exacting compliance with Section 21. In [Mallillin] v. People, this court said that "the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is small and is one that has physical characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form to substances familiar to people in their daily lives."
xxx xxx xxx
Trial courts should meticulously consider the factual intricacies of cases involving violations of Republic Act No. 9165. All details that factor into an ostensibly uncomplicated and barefaced narrative must be scrupulously considered. Courts must employ heightened scrutiny, consistent with the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, in evaluating cases involving min[u]scule amounts of drugs. These can be readily planted and tampered. 76 (Emphases supplied, citations omitted)
While the failure to strictly adhere to chain of custody requirements may absolve an accused of criminal liability, Holgado also recognized the need to effectively address this country's problem with dangerous drugs:
It is lamentable that while our dockets are clogged with prosecutions under Republic Act No. 9165 involving small-time drug users and retailers, we are seriously short of prosecutions involving the proverbial "big fish." We are swamped with cases involving small fry who have been arrested for min[u]scule amounts. While they are certainly a bane to our society, small retailers are but low-lying fruits in an exceedingly vast network of drug cartels. Both law enforcers and prosecutors should realize that the more effective and efficient strategy is to focus resources more on the source and true leadership of these nefarious organizations. Otherwise, all these executive and judicial resources expended to attempt to convict an accused for 0.05 gram of shabu under doubtful custodial arrangements will hardly make a dent in the overall picture. It might in fact be distracting our law enforcers from their more challenging task: to uproot the causes of this drug menace. We stand ready to assess cases involving greater amounts of drugs and the leadership of these cartels. 77 (Emphases supplied)
Drug busts for minuscule amounts significantly differ in applicable circumstances from drug busts for larger and more substantial amounts. This Court continues to wait for an opportunity to make this distinction. Until law enforcement is able to arrest and prosecute "the source and true leadership" of this country's ongoing drug menace, 78 prosecution for minuscule amounts of dangerous drugs requires unerring compliance with chain of custody requirements. Otherwise, the "origin, identity and integrity" of the corpus delicti will be cast in serious doubt, and the accused will merit an acquittal. 79
WHEREFORE, the January 31, 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06574 and the November 26, 2013 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Aparri, Cagayan in Criminal Case No. II-10775 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellants Achmed Bumatay y Besinal and Julius Nogoy y Reboroso are hereby ACQUITTED of illegal sale of dangerous drugs for failure of the prosecution to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Accused-appellants are ordered RELEASED from confinement unless they are being held for some other legal grounds.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections for immediate implementation. The Director General is directed to report to this Court, within five days from receipt of this Resolution, the action he has taken. Copies shall also be furnished to the Police General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information.
The Regional Trial Court is directed to turn over the sachets of shabu subject of this case to the Dangerous Drugs Board for destruction in accordance with law.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED." (Lopez, J., J., designated additional Member vice Carandang, J. per Raffle dated October 27, 2021; Dimaampao, J., designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2839 dated September 16, 2021)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 12-13, CA rollo, pp. 231-234.
2. Rollo, pp. 2-11. The January 31, 2017 Decision in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06574, was penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez (now a Member of this Court) with the concurrence of Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang (now a Member of this Court) and Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez of the Third Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3. CA rollo, pp. 227-230. The July 3, 2017 Resolution in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06574 was penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez (now a Member of this Court) with the concurrence of Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang (now a Member of this Court) and Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez of the Former Third Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
4. Rollo, pp. 2-3.
5. Id. at 3.
6. CA rollo, p. 49.
7. Rollo, p. 3.
8. Id.
9. Id.
10. Id.
11. Id.
12. Id. at 3-4.
13. Id. at 4.
14. Id.
15. Id.
16. Id. at 4-5.
17. Id. at 5.
18. Id.
19. Id.
20. Id.
21. Id.
22. CA rollo, pp. 48-58. The November 26, 2013 Decision was penned by Presiding Judge Neljoe A. Cortes of Regional Trial Court, Aparri, Cagayan, Branch 6.
23. Id. at 52-53.
24. Id. at 58.
25. Rollo, pp. 2-10.
26. Id. at 10.
27. Id. at 12-13.
28. CA rollo, pp. 219-225.
29. Id. at 227-230.
30. Id. at 231-234.
31. Id. at 237.
32. Rollo, pp. 17-18.
33. Id. at 25-27, 30-32.
34. Id. at 35-36.
35. People v. Goco, 797 Phil. 433, 442 (2016) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division].
36. 627 Phil. 188 (2010) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division].
37. Id. at 188.
38. People v. Sipin, 833 Phil. 67, 81 (2018) [Per J. Peralta, Second Division].
39. G.R. No. 209078, September 4, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65712> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
40. 725 Phil. 268 (2014) [Per J. Reyes, First Division].
41. Villasana v. People, G.R. No. 209078, September 4, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65712> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
42. People v. Goco, 797 Phil. 433 (2016) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division].
43. Id. at 444-445.
44. Republic Act No. 9165 (2002), Sec. 21 (1).
45. People v. Sultan, G.R. No. 225210, August 7, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65518> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
46. People v. Que, 824 Phil. 882 (2018) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
47. People v. Sultan, G.R. No. 225210, August 7, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65518> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
48. G.R. No. 225786, November 14, 2018 [Per J. Caguioa, Second Division] <http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64854>.
49. Id.
50. Rollo, p. 9.
51. People v. Kasan, G.R. No. 238334, July 3, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65529> [Per J. Lazaro-Javier, Second Division], citing People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64400> [Per J. Peralta, En Banc] and People v. Tampan, G.R. No. 222648, February 13, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65113> [Per J. Reyes, Jr., Second Division].
52. G.R. No. 233883, January 7, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64885> [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].
53. Id.
54. 830 Phil. 385 (2018) [Per J. Caguioa, Second Division].
55. Id. at 408-409.
56. Rollo, p. 4.
57. G.R. No. 233883, January 7, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64885> [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].
58. People v. Que, 824 Phil. 882, 913 (2018) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
59. G.R. No. 231008, November 5, 2018, <http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64752> [Per J. Peralta, Third Division].
60. Id.
61. Rollo, p. 4.
62. CA rollo, p. 145.
63. Id.
64. People v. Goco, 797 Phil. 433, 444 (2016) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division].
65. CA rollo, p. 42.
66. Rollo, pp. 4-5.
67. People v. Ubungen, 836 Phil. 888, 902 (2018) [Per J. Martires, Third Division].
68. Id.
69. People v. Kasan, G.R. No. 238334, July 3, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65529> [Per J. Lazaro-Javier, Second Division].
70. People v. Siaton, 789 Phil. 87, 107 (2016) [Per J. Perez, Third Division].
71. People v. Ubungen, 836 Phil. 888, 902 (2018) [Per J. Martires, Third Division].
72. Id.
73. People v. Kamad, 624 Phil. 289 (2010) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
74. Id. at 311.
75. 741 Phil. 78 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
76. Id. at 99-100.
77. Id. at 100.
78. Id.
79. People v. Saunar, 816 Phil. 482, 498 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].