THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242215. December 2, 2020.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. RAYMUNDO CABATBAT y DELOS REYES AND GENER GALAPON y LUMITAP, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated December 2, 2020, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242215 (People of the Philippines v. Raymundo Cabatbat y Delos Reyes and Gener Galapon y Lumitap). — This Appeal assails the Decision 1 dated February 6, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07985 affirming the conviction of Raymundo Cabatbat y Delos Reyes (Cabatbat) and Gener Galapon y Lumitap (Galapon; collectively, appellants) for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 involving the alleged sale and possession of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, also known as "shabu," a dangerous drug.
The Proceedings Before the Trial Court
The Charges
An Information for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs was filed against appellants, while two (2) separate Informations for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs were filed against them, viz.:
In Criminal Case No. 3567-G
That on or about the 27th day of May, 2014 at Brgy. Sta. Veronica, Guimba, Nueva Ecija, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named-accused, conniving together, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have in their custody and control 0.04 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu, a dangerous drug, and sell the same to a poseur buyer, without having the necessary permit and/or license having been issued to him by the proper government agency, to the damage and prejudice of the government.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 2
In Criminal Case No. 3568-G
That on or about the 27th day of May, 2014 at Brgy. Sta. Veronica, Guimba, Nueva Ecija, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named-accused, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have in his possession control and custody, nineteen (19) pieces of heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets weighing 1.48 grams of Methamphetamine hydrochloride otherwise known as shabu, a dangerous drug without any lawful authority to possess the same.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3
In Criminal Case No. 3569-G
That on or about the 27th day of May, 2014 at Brgy. Sta. Veronica, Guimba, Nueva Ecija, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named-accused, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have in his possession control and custody, eight (8) pieces of heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets weighing 0.41 gram of Methamphetamine hydrochloride otherwise known as shabu, a dangerous drug without any lawful authority to possess the same.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
On arraignment, appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges. Joint trial ensued. 5
During the trial, PO1 Rollex Jay Antonio (PO1 Antonio), PO3 Arthur Perico (PO3 Perico) and PCI Jebie 6 C. Timario (PCI Timario) testified for the prosecution. 7 On the other hand, appellants testified for the defense. 8
The Prosecution's Version
On May 27, 2014, PO1 Antonio and PO3 Perico were assigned at the Provincial Intelligence Unit of the Nueva Ecija Police Provincial Office. At 6 o'clock in the evening of the same day, SPO4 Rey Pascua (SPO4 Pascua), while at their safe house in Guimba, Nueva Ecija together with PO1 Antonio and PO3 Perico, received a report from a confidential informant regarding the illegal drugs activity in Barangay Sta. Veronica, Guimba, Nueva Ecija of a certain "Pana." At that time, "Pana" was already under surveillance for six (6) months. 9
SPO4 Pascua immediately informed their Chief Intelligence Officer Police Superintendent Andrew Aguirre (PSupt. Aguirre) about the report they received. PSupt. Aguirre then instructed them to form a team and conduct a buy-bust operation against "Pana." Consequently, a buy-bust team comprised of PO1 Antonio, PO3 Perico, SPO4 Pascua, PO1 Medina, PO3 Danny Zulueta (PO3 Zulueta), PO1 Jerome Torres, PO1 Caceres and the informant was formed. During the operational briefing, PO1 Antonio was designated as poseur-buyer and PO3 Perico as back-up while the informant was tasked to introduce PO1 Antonio to "Pana." 10
SPO4 Pascua coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. Thereafter, the buy-bust team proceeded to the target area — boundary of Barangay Sta. Veronica and Barangay St. John, both in Guimba, Nueva Ecija. PO1 Antonio and the informant were on board a motorcycle, while the rest of the team were on board a white Nissan Sentra. At 9:45 in the evening, the buy-bust team arrived at the target area near the Conchita Grocery Store. PO3 Perico, PO1 Medina, PO3 Zulueta and SPO4 Pascua positioned themselves at the Conchita Grocery Store while the other members of the buy-bust team positioned themselves at the basketball court and some stayed inside the car. 11
Subsequently, a tricycle arrived at the target area carrying "Pana," who was later identified as Cabatbat. Cabatbat was with a back-rider companion who was later identified as Galapon. Appellants approached PO1 Antonio and the informant. The informant introduced PO1 Antonio as his friend who wants to buy shabu. After Cabatbat confirmed he has shabu with him, PO1 Antonio handed him a P500.00-bill marked money bearing Serial No. WY 351417 which Cabatbat received with his right hand. Then, Galapon took out from his left pocket a transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance and handed it to PO1 Antonio. PO1 Antonio placed the transparent plastic sachet inside his pocket and removed his baseball cap which is the pre-arranged signal for the consummation of the sale of shabu. 12
PO1 Antonio arrested Cabatbat. Galapon tried to run away but PO3 Perico accosted him. PO1 Antonio and PO3 Perico informed appellants of their constitutional rights. Thereafter, PO1 Antonio frisked Cabatbat and recovered from him 19 transparent plastic sachets and the P500.00-bill. 13 On the other hand, PO3 Perico frisked and recovered eight (8) transparent plastic sachets from the pockets of Galapon which he handed to PO1 Antonio.
The buy-bust team brought appellants and the seized items to the Barangay Hall of Barangay Sta. Veronica. There, the seized items were marked and inventoried in the presence of appellants, Barangay Chair Diosdado de la Cruz and Bantay Bayan Julius Caesar Exala. PO1 Antonio marked the 19 transparent plastic sachets he recovered from Cabatbat with the latter's initials "RDC," while PO3 Perico marked the eight (8) transparent plastic sachets he recovered from Galapon with the latter's initials "GLG." 14 Thereafter, PO1 Antonio prepared the Receipt of Property Seized. The apprehending officers, however, failed to photograph the seized items. 15
After the marking and inventory of the seized items, PO1 Antonio and PO3 Perico brought appellants and the seized items to the Police Provincial Headquarters (Provincial Headquarters) in Cabanatuan City. Upon their arrival, they called the media and Department of Justice (DOJ) representatives. The media and DOJ representatives thereafter arrived at the Provincial Headquarters and signed the Receipt of Property Seized which was prepared by PO1 Antonio in Sta. Veronica Barangay Hall. 16 PO1 Antonio and PO3 Perico then prepared two (2) requests for laboratory examination of the items respectively seized from appellants. 17
At 5:50 in the afternoon of the following day, or on May 28, 2014, PO1 Antonio and PO3 Perico brought the seized items to the Nueva Ecija Provincial Crime Laboratory Office (NEPCLO) for laboratory testing. PCI Timario personally received the seized items and conducted the test. 18 The test confirmed the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride in the seized items. 19
The Defense's Version
On May 27, 2014 at 5 o'clock in the afternoon, appellants were in Barangay Sta. Veronica, Guimba, Nueva Ecija. They were on their way to a public market to buy "pulutan" when they were approached by four (4) armed men in civilian clothes. Galapon assumed that the armed men were police officers. They were made to lie face down on the ground. Then, they were handcuffed and boarded into a car. Inside the car, they were beaten-up by a person later identified as SPO4 Pascua. 20
The armed men asked for the location of Cabatbat's house. After being beaten up, Galapon was forced to tell them its location. They then proceeded to Cabatbat's house in Barangay St. John, Guimba, Nueva Ecija. The police officers went inside while appellants were left in the car with someone pointing a gun at them. Thereafter, they all proceeded to Barangay Cavite of the same Municipality to look for a certain "Boying." 21
Appellants underwent medical examination at Eduardo L. Joson Memorial Hospital. Thereafter, they were incarcerated. 22
The Trial Court's Ruling
As borne by its Joint Decision 23 dated October 16, 2015, the trial court found appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged, viz.:
WHEREFORE, the court finds accused Raymundo Cabatbat y delos Reyes and Gener Galapon y Lumitap, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for selling, in conspiracy with another, 0.04 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochoride (sic) known as "Shabu." Sentencing both of them to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos, each without eligibility of parole.
Raymundo Cabatbat y delos Reyes is likewise found GUILTY for being caught in possession of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (sic) known as "Shabu" with a total weight of 1.48 grams. He is therefore sentenced to suffer a penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months and a FINE of P300,000.00 Pesos.
Gener Galapon y Lumitap is likewise found GUILTY for being caught in possession of Methamphetamine Hydrochoride (sic) known as "Shabu" with a total weight of 0.41 gram. He is therefore sentenced to suffer a penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months and a FINE of P300,000.00 Pesos.
The twenty eight (28) sachets of shabu are CONFISCATED in favor of the government, which shall be disposed in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED. 24
It found the testimonies of PO1 Antonio and PO3 Perico worthy of belief. Their positive narration of facts coupled with presentation of the corpus delicti and other relevant evidence prevail over appellants' denial of the charges. 25 It likewise held that the evidentiary value of the seized items was not affected by the apprehending officers' failure to complete the inventory in the Barangay Hall of Sta. Veronica. 26
The Proceedings Before the CA
On appeal, appellants faulted the trial court for rendering a verdict of conviction despite the prosecution's failure to establish the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. 27
In refutation, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) defended the verdict of conviction. It argued that all the elements of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs are present and duly established. 28 Also, there was substantial compliance with the chain of custody rule on the part of the arresting officers. Thus, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drugs were duly preserved. 29 Moreover, appellants' denial of the crimes charged failed in view of the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. 30
The CA's Ruling
The CA affirmed appellant's conviction in its assailed Decision dated February 6, 2018. It found that all the elements of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs were sufficiently established by the prosecution. 31 It also found that there was substantial compliance with the chain of custody rule on the part of the apprehending officers. 32
The Present Appeal
Appellants now seek affirmative relief from this Court and pray anew for their acquittal.
For purposes of this appeal, both parties manifested that they will no longer file supplemental briefs, and prayed that their respective briefs submitted before the CA be considered in resolving the appeal.
Issue
Did the CA err in affirming the trial court's verdict of conviction against appellants despite the procedural deficiencies and gaps in the chain of custody of the seized items?
Our Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
Appellants were charged with Illegal Sale and Possession of Dangerous Drugs allegedly committed on May 27, 2014. The governing law, therefore, is RA 9165 before its amendment on July 15, 2014. 33
In illegal drugs cases, the drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. The prosecution is, therefore, tasked to establish that the substance illegally possessed by the accused is the same substance presented in court. 34
Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 prescribes the standard in preserving the corpus delicti in illegal drug cases, viz.: 35
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. (Emphasis added)
The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 further commands: 36
Section 21. (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 non-compliance 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. (Emphases added)
To ensure the integrity of the seized drug, the prosecution must account for each link in its chain of custody: first, the seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court. 37
The records here reveal the apprehending officers' flagrant disregard of the requirements of the chain of custody rule.
To begin with, the marking and inventory of the seized items were not done immediately at the place of arrest but at a barangay hall. We have previously held that a barangay hall is not one of the allowed alternative places contemplated under Section 21 of the above cited IRR. 38
The apprehending officers also failed to comply with the ''three-witness rule" which requires the presence of (1) a media representative, (2) a Department of Justice (DOJ) representative, and (3) an elected public official, at the time of the warrantless arrest and during the inventory of the seized items.·39
Apprehending officer PO1 Antonio testified:
Q A while ago, you have likewise identified a Receipt of Property Seized which was marked as Exhibit "B'' and series. You have identified signatures. According to you, these persons were present at the time you conducted the Inventory. Am I correct?
A Yes, Ma'am, the barangay officials.
Q You mentioned that Chris Sansano was not present at the time you prepared this inventory. Am I correct?
A No, Ma'am. Only at the Provincial Headquarters.
Q By the way, where did you conduct this Inventory?
A In Sta. Veronica, Ma'am.
Q So, this representative from TV5 did not proceed to Sta. Veronica?
A No, Ma'am.
Q Where did he affix his signature?
A At the Provincial Headquarters, Ma'am.
Q How about Fernando Yangco, who according to you is a representative of the DOJ. Would I be correct that he was not likewise present at the time you prepared this Inventory at the barangay hall?
A Yes, Ma'am, he was not there. 40
xxx xxx xxx
Q These two (2) witnesses did not actually witness the actual inventory of the alleged seized items, correct?
A Yes, Ma'am.41 (Emphases supplied)
Apprehending officer PO3 Perico likewise testified:
Q You want to impress upon this Honorable Court that there were two taking of the inventories — one at the barangay hall of Sta. Veronica and the other one in your office at Burgos Avenue, Cabanatuan City, is that what you mean?
A Only one inventory was prepared and it was conducted at Brgy. Sta. Veronica, Guimba, Nueva Ecija. In our office we only presented the inventory and the seized items to the representatives of the media and DOJ, sir.42
xxx xxx xxx
COURT:
Q Why did you not complete the inventory here in Guimba?
A Since we do not have contacts with the representatives of the media and DOJ we decided to proceed to our office in Cabanatuan and from there we called the representatives of the media and DOJ, Sir. 43 (Emphasis supplied)
It is worthy to note that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of the three required witnesses during the buy-bust operation. Moreover, among the four (4) purported witnesses who signed the Receipt of Property Seized, only two (2) actually witnessed the inventory — the Barangay Chair and a Bantay Bayan. The other two — media and DOJ representatives, did not witness the same. In fact, they were present only at the Provincial Headquarters and there signed the Receipt of Property Seized which was prepared at the Barangay Hall. Undoubtedly, the three-witness rule has been disregarded here.
The presence of the three required witnesses was precisely necessary to insulate the apprehension and incrimination proceedings from any taint of illegitimacy or irregularity. 44 Surely, Section 21 of the IRR provides for a saving clause. This saving clause provides that non-compliance with the procedural requirements, under justifiable grounds so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved, shall not render void and invalid the seizures of and custody over the seized items. In the instant case, aside from claiming that they did not have contact with the media and DOJ representatives, PO3 Perico also claimed that they wanted to avoid a possible mis-encounter with the local police, viz.:
ATTY. ENCOMIENDA
Q You did not coordinate with the Guimba Police Station in conducting a buy bust operation, right?
A Yes, Ma'am.
Q Even after your buy-bust operation you did not coordinate?
A Yes, Ma'am. 45
xxx xxx xxx
Q That means, Mr. Witness, that you do not trust the Guimba Police Station?
A Yes, Ma'am. That is why we did not coordinate. 46
xxx xxx xxx
COURT
Q You did not attempt to call the representative of the media here in Guimba?
A No, Sir, because our concern is how to bring them in our office in Cabanatuan.
Q Why what was your concern in bringing them to your office in Cabanatuan City?
A Because first we did not coordinate with the PNP Guimba Police Station it is possible that they (sic) might have a mis-encounter, Sir.
Q With whom?
A With Guimba Police and our group, Sir. In fact, we are in civilian clothes. 47
The Court does not find PO3 Perico's explanation convincing. In People v. Crispo, 48 the Court emphasized that police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time — beginning from the moment they have received the information about the activities of the accused until the time of his arrest — to prepare for a buy-bust operation and consequently, make the necessary arrangements beforehand knowing full well that they would have to strictly comply with the set procedure prescribed in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. As such, police officers are compelled not only to state reasons for their non-compliance, but must in fact, also convince the Court that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedure, and that under the given circumstances, their actions were reasonable. 49
In the instant case, the apprehending officers failed to show that they exerted earnest efforts to contact media and DOJ representatives from their team meeting up to the inventory taking. PO3 Perico's testimony itself reveals that the buy-bust team did not really intend to contact these required witnesses even while at the Barangay Hall. The Court likewise rejects the apprehending officer's claim of possible mis-encounter with the local police. The buy-bust team could have coordinated with the local police after the buy-bust operation, but still chose not to. The Court will not allow them now to use this "possible mis-encounter" as an excuse for their non-compliance with the three-witness rule.
Verily, the unjustified absence of the required insulating witnesses during the buy-bust operation and inventory, and lack of earnest efforts to secure their presence put into question the identity and integrity of the seized illegal drugs. 50
Another procedural deficiency here is the apprehending officers' failure to photograph the seized items immediately at the place of arrest or during the inventory taking of the seized items. In an attempt to justify their omission, PO3 Perico explained that they did not have camera with them, viz.:
Q The one confiscated from Raymundo Cabatbat was also brought to the Brgy. Hall of Sta. Veronica?
A Yes, Ma'am.
Q It was there where you conducted the inventory?
A Yes, Sir (sic).
Q But you did not take photograph at that time right?
A We do not have camera with us, Ma'am.51
In People v. Nepomuceno, 52We held that the supposed unavailability of a camera was obviously improbable simply because almost every person, at the time the buy-bust operation was conducted (2008), carried a mobile phone with a camera feature. Even more obvious is the fact that the arrest resulted from a buy-bust operation in relation to the conduct of which the police officers had more than sufficient time to anticipate the need for the camera. 53 Applying this in the present case, the Court finds the apprehending officers' non-compliance with the photograph requirement again unjustified. The buy-bust operation was conducted in 2014 when, like in 2008, almost every person carries a mobile phone with a camera feature. Also, the arrest of appellants was a result of a buy-bust operation. The buy-bust team had ample time to prepare all that is necessary to execute the operation in faithful compliance with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 and its IRR, but still failed.
More importantly, the prosecution failed to establish the second link in the chain of custody of the seized items. Nowhere in the records does it show that the seized items were turned over from the apprehending officer to the investigating officer. Neither was it shown that the apprehending officer, PO1 Antonio served both as the apprehending officer and investigating officer.
Lastly, the buy-bust operation was conducted on May 27, 2014 at 9:45 in the evening, and it was only at 5:50 54 in the afternoon of the following day (May 28, 2014) that the seized items were brought to NEPCLO for laboratory testing. The seized items stayed in the possession of PO1 Antonio overnight. He merely claimed that the seized items were in his possession the whole time without accounting for their proper handling and safekeeping until its receipt by PCI Timario, viz.:
COURT:
Q How long a time that lapsed from the time you got hold of the seized items up to the time when you have the items received at the NEPCLO?
A We proceeded to the NEPCLO on May 28 at around 7:50 in the evening, Your Honor.
Q So, that was the following day?
A Yes, Your Honor because the operation was on May 27 at 9:45 in the evening.
Q All along, who was in possession of those items?
A From the seizure up to the time it was brought to the Crime Laboratory it was in my possession, Your Honor.
Q Those items did not change hands?
A Yes, Your Honor. 55
In People v. Beran, 56 the accused was acquitted on the ground, among others, that the police officer who served both as the apprehending officer and investigating officer submitted the sachet to the laboratory only the following day without showing how he preserved his exclusive custody thereof overnight, casting doubt on the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item. 57
Indeed, the repeated breach of the chain of custody here had cast serious doubt on the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti. 58 The implausible reasons advanced by the apprehending officers and the procedural lapses and gaps here were too serious to be excused.
The Court likewise notes that the buy-bust team had placed their main target, Cabatbat, under surveillance for six (6) months prior to the buy-bust operation. Hence, there was enough time and reason for the team to secure a search warrant but again failed in this regard. 59
The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties in favor of the police officers will not save the prosecution's case, given the foregoing lapses and gaps in the chain of custody. The presumption stands only when no reason exists in the records by which to doubt the regularity of the performance of official duty. And even in that instance, the presumption of regularity will never be stronger than the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. Otherwise, a mere rule of evidence will defeat the constitutionally enshrined right of an accused. 60
All told, for failure of prosecution to prove the guilt of appellants beyond reasonable doubt, their acquittal is perforce in order.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated February 6, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07985 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, appellants Raymundo Cabatbat y Delos Reyes and Gener Galapon y Lumitap are ACQUITTED of the crimes charged.
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ORDERED to: (a) cause the immediate release of Raymundo Cabatbat y Delos Reyes and Gener Galapon y Lumitap, unless they are being held in custody for any other lawful reason; and (b) inform the Court of the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued.
SO ORDERED." (Leonen, J., on official leave.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, with Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Edwin D. Sorongon, concurring; rollo, pp. 2-29.
2.Id. at 3.
3.Id. at 3-4.
4.Id. at 4.
5. CA rollo, p. 85.
6. Also referred to as Jebbie C. Timario in some parts of the rollo.
7.Rollo, p. 4.
8.Id. at 8.
9.Id. at 4-5.
10.Id. at 5.
11.Id. at 5-6.
12.Id. at 6.
13.Id. at 6-7.
14.Id. at 7.
15. CA rollo, p. 87.
16.Rollo, pp. 7-8.
17. TSN, March 2, 2015, p. 16; TSN, February 2, 2015, p. 3.
18. TSN, February 2, 2015, pp. 11-12.
19.Rollo, pp. 7-8.
20.Id. at 8.
21.Id. at 8-9.
22.Id. at 9.
23. Penned by Presiding Judge Frazierwin V. Viterbo; CA rollo, pp. 84-94.
24.Id. at 94.
25.Id. at 93.
26.Id. at 92.
27.Id. at 67-80.
28.Id. at 113-114.
29.Id. at 108-113.
30.Rollo, pp. 115-116.
31.Id. at 11-18.
32.Id. at 23-27.
33.People v. Dela Torre, G.R. No. 225789, July 29, 2019; see also People v. Orcullo, G.R. No. 229675, July 8, 2019.
34.People v. Nazareno, G.R. No. 231875, July 29, 2019.
35.People v. Dela Torre, supra note 33.
36.Id.
37.People v. Nazareno, supra note 34.
38. See People v. Tomawis, 830 Phil. 385, 406 (2018).
39.Id.
40. TSN, September 22, 2014, p. 23.
41.Id. at 24.
42. TSN, March 2, 2015, p. 16.
43.Id. at 23.
44. See People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749 (2014).
45. TSN, March 2, 2015, p. 23.
46.Id. at 22.
47.Id. at 22-23.
48. 828 Phil. 416 (2018).
49.Id. at 436.
50. See People v. Tayan, G.R. No. 242160, July 8, 2019.
51. TSN, March 2, 2015, p. 22.
52. G.R. No. 216062, September 19, 2018.
53.Id.
54. Appears in some parts of the record as 7:50 in the evening.
55. TSN, September 22, 2014, p. 26.
56. 724 Phil. 788 (2014).
57. See People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212 (2015).
58. See Jocson v. People, G.R. No. 199644, June 19, 2019.
59.People v. Palaras, G.R. No. 219582, July 11, 2018.
60.People v. Diputado, 813 Phil. 160, 176 (2017).