FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 244053. November 11, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.CHRISTOPHER CAGAS y CAGAS A.K.A. 'TOKI', accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 11, 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 244053 (People of the Philippines v. Christopher Cagas y Cagas a.k.a. 'Toki'). — This is an appeal from the July 30, 2018 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02567, which affirmed in toto the May 22, 2017 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 33, Dumaguete City, finding accused-appellant Christopher C. Cagas a.k.a. "Toki" (Cagas) guilty of violation of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 3(R.A. No. 9165).
On December 19, 2016 and January 12, 2017, Cagas was charged with selling and possessing methamphetamine hydrochloride commonly known as shabu, respectively, as defined and penalized under Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. No. 9165. The accusatory portions of the two informations read:
Crim. Case No. 24091
That on or about the 17th day of December, 2016 in the City of Dumaguete, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, not being then authorized by law, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally sell and/or deliver to poseur-buyer one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.07 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly called "shabu," a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law. 4
Crim. Case No. 24092
That on or about the 17th day of December, 2016 in the City of Dumaguete, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, not being then authorized by law, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously possess one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing a total weight of 3.61 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly called "shabu," a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law. 5
The versions of the prosecution and the defense were synthesized by the CA in its assailed decision, as follows:
The Office of the Provincial Anti-Illegal Drug Special Operations Task Force (PAIDSOTG) of the Negros Oriental Provincial Police headed by Police Senior Inspector Richmon T. Conag (PSI Conag) received an information on December 17, 2016 at about four o'clock in the afternoon of the alleged illegal activities of a person known as "Toki" whose real name is Christopher Cagas. PSI Conag deployed Police Officer 2 Virgilio Rizon Villanueva, Jr. (PO2 Villanueva) to verify the report by conducting a surveillance and casing operations on Cagas at Zone 1, Barangay Looc, Dumaguete City. PO2 Villanueva tapped his confidential agent and together, they went to the scene. They observed that indeed Cagas was involved in selling dangerous drugs near the Palawan Pawnshop. PO2 Villanueva relayed his findings to PSI Conag, who then decided to conduct a buy-bust operation. He briefed the buy-bust team about the operation and PO2 Villanueva was designated as the poseur-buyer and SPO2 Cyrus Orcullo (SPO2 Orcullo) as team leader. PO2 Villanueva marked a P500.00 bill with his signature. While the other police officers and PAIDSOTG operatives acted as perimeter security. The police operatives thereafter went to Zone 1, Barangay Looc to conduct the buy-bust operation. 6
Before the buy-bust team proceeded to the place of target, they received the Philippine Drug Enforcement Administration Coordination Number via text message. PO2 Villanueva together with his confidential agent, went in an alley at the back of Palawan Pawnshop. Therein, PO2 Villanueva offered to buy shabu and gave the marked P500.00 bill to Cagas. Who thereafter reached on the right pocket of his pants and gave him a sachet of suspected shabu. PO2 Villanueva then announced the arrest by introducing himself as a police officer. He handcuffed Cagas and recited his Miranda rights. As PO2 Villanueva frisked Cagas, he found a bigger sachet of suspected shabu and the marked P500.00 bill. He immediately marked the two sachets in the presence of Cagas with the markings CC-BB-12-17-16 and CC-P-12-17-16. The buy-bust team proceeded to the police station where PO2 Villanueva prepared the inventory of property seized while the PNP personnel called the representatives of the local government unit and the media to witness the same. Police Officer Friedierick Pajayat (PO Pajayat) who was part of the perimeter security was made the designated photographer. PO Pajayat took pictures during the briefing before the buy-bust, the signing of the inventory, and when PO2 Villanueva was placing the two sachets of suspected shabu in an envelope, sealed it and placed his signature on it. 7
PO2 Villanueva then prepared a request for laboratory examination and brought the same together with the sealed brown envelope containing the two sachets of suspected shabu to the PNP Provincial Crime Laboratory where they were received by Police Officer 3 Edelmar Manaban (PO3 Manaban) in the morning of December 18, 2016. PO2 Villanueva wrote his name on the space for the one who delivered the specimens but forgot to sign the same. Nonetheless, PO3 Manaban confirmed that it was PO2 Villanueva who brought the sealed envelope. PO3 Manaban then proceeded to open the sealed envelope to see its contents. After seeing the two sachets, he resealed the envelope with masking tape and placed his signature therein, then deposited the envelope in the deposit cabinet. 8 He took a urine sample of Cagas, which was delivered by PO2 Villanueva to the crime laboratory. 9
PO3 Manaban then gave the sealed brown envelope containing two sachets to Police Inspector Reymond A. Royales (PI Royales) who was the forensic chemist on detail. PI Royales made a qualitative examination consisting of screening and confirmatory testing on the two sachets and the urine sample of Cagas. He found that the two sachets were positive of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. PI Royales reduced his findings in writing as Chemistry Report No. DT-531-16. He resealed the envelope after the tests conducted and marked the same as "A" D-736-16 RAR with his initials and "A-2" D-736-16 RAR with his initials of the sachet subject of possession. 10
On the part of the defense, Cagas proffered the defense of alibi. He claimed that he was temporarily residing at Sitio Mutya, Canday-ong, Dumaguete City. He used to work in Muntinlupa, Alabang, as a butcher at Total Company which supplied meat to markets and malls. He went home to Dumaguete because his grandmother died in September. He stayed longer because he was still mourning over the loss of his grandmother until the day he was arrested. Cagas claimed that in the evening of December 17, 2016, his uncle requested him to bring money to the latter's godchild in Barangay Looc for an emergency. He conceded that he went to the house of one Henry Mahusay at Zone 1, Barangay Looc, Dumaguete City. When he went out of the said house, he was arrested by the police. Cagas asked the reason for his arrest but the police simply told him to go with them to the police station. Thereafter, the police brought him around the city and asked him if he had known any drug personalities who were selling drugs but he replied in the negative. He was brought to the police station and was made to sit in front of a table where he saw drugs already laid on the table. Cagas stated that he did not know who owned the drugs. He denied having known PO2 Villanueva and did not have any idea why the latter would fabricate a case against him. 11
On May 22, 2017, the RTC of Dumaguete City, Branch 33, rendered its decision convicting Cagas for violation of Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. No. 9165, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, finding the accused Christopher Cagas y Cagas guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, and pursuant to Domingo, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos.
The accused is also sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine of Three Hundred Thousand (P300,000.00) Pesos for possession of 3.61 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride which is punishable under Section 11 (3), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
SO ORDERED. 12
This prompted Cagas to file a notice of appeal before the CA. 13 Cagas argued in his appellant's brief 14 that the sale transaction was not duly established and proven by the prosecution. 15 Cagas further argued that the alleged confiscated items are inadmissible in evidence since there was no warrantless arrest to speak of, hence, such seized items are fruits of the poisonous tree. 16 He also claimed that the waiver to question the illegality of the arrest does not carry the waiver to question the inadmissibility of the evidence. 17 Lastly, Cagas asserted that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot be appreciated since the presumption of his innocence has not been overthrown beyond reasonable doubt. 18
The State, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) maintained in its brief 19 that all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs are present. 20 The OSG pointed out that the non-presentation of the informant is dispensable to convict an accused for the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. 21
The OSG also noted that the prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Cagas was caught in flagrante delicto selling and because of such valid warrantless arrest, the arresting officer found an additional sachet of shabu after the body search was done as an incident of such arrest. 22
On July 30, 2018, the CA denied Cagas' appeal and affirmed in toto the RTC Decision, thus:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DENIED. The Decision of the RTC, Branch 33, Dumaguete City, dated May 22, 2017, in Criminal Case Nos. 24091 and 24092, is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED. 23
In dismissing the appeal, the CA noted that with regard the illegal sale of dangerous drugs what is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the dangerous drug in evidence. 24 The CA opined that the clear, categorical and positive testimony of PO2 Villanueva sufficiently established the exchange of money and the shabu during the entrapment operation. 25
The CA likewise found that the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drug. The CA detailed that upon the arrest of Cagas, PO2 Villanueva frisked him and discovered a larger sachet of shabu from his possession. The appellate court further explained that the possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of animus possidendi, which is sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of satisfactory explanation of such possession. 26
Hence, Cagas filed a Notice of Appeal. 27 Accordingly, the CA gave due course to the appeal and elevated the case records to this Court. 28
Cagas and the OSG both manifested that they are no longer submitting supplemental briefs instead they will be adopting the briefs they submitted in the CA. 29 Thus, the case was deemed submitted for decision.
The sole issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not the CA erred in convicting Cagas for illegal sale and possession of shabu.
After a meticulous examination of the records, the Court concludes that a reversal of the conviction is justified.
In prosecutions for dangerous drugs, the seized dangerous drugs from a suspect comprise the corpus delicti of the charge. 30 Thus, in order to obviate any unnecessary doubt on its identity, the prosecution has to show an unbroken chain of custody over the same and account for each link in the chain of custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime. 31
Section 1 (b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, which implements R.A. No. 9165, defines chain of custody as follows:
Chain of custody refers to the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping, to presentation in court for destruction.
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640 provides the procedure to be followed in the seizure and custody of prohibited drugs, to wit:
SEC. 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 dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items.
The Guidelines on the Implementing Rules and Regulations (Guidelines on the IRR) 32 of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 further illuminate:
SECTION 1. Implementing Guidelines. — 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:
A. Marking, Inventory and Photograph; Chain of Custody Implementing Paragraph "a" of the IRR
A.1. The apprehending or seizing officer having initial custody and control of the seized or confiscated dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, mark, inventory and photograph the same in the following manner:
A.1.1. The marking, physical inventory and photograph of the seized/confiscated items shall be conducted where the search warrant is served.
A.1.2. The marking is the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initial and signature on the item/s seized.
A.1.3. In warrantless seizures, the marking of the seized items in the presence of the violator shall be done immediately at the place where the drugs were seized or at the nearest police station or nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable. The physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted in the same nearest police station or nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable.
A.1.4. In cases when the execution of search warrant is preceded by warrantless seizures, the marking, inventory and photograph of the items recovered from the search warrant shall be performed separately from the marking, inventory and photograph of the items seized from warrantless seizures.
A.1.5. The physical inventory and photograph of the seized/confiscated items shall be done in the presence of the suspect or his representative or counsel, with elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media, who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory of the seized or confiscated items and be given copy thereof. In case of their refusal to sign, it shall be stated "refused to sign" above their names in the certificate of inventory of the apprehending or seizing officer.
A.1.6. A representative of the NPS is anyone from its employees, while the media representative is any media practitioner. The elected public official is any incumbent public official regardless of the place where he/she is elected.
A.1.7. To prevent switching or contamination, the seized items, which are fungible and indistinct in character, and which have been marked after the seizure, shall be sealed in a container or evidence bag and signed by the apprehending/seizing officer for submission to the forensic laboratory for examination.
A.1.8. In case of seizure of plant sources at the plantation site, where it is not physically possible to count or weigh the seizure as a complete entity, the seizing officer shall estimate its count or gross weight or net weight, as the case may be. If it is safe and practicable, marking, inventory and photograph of the seized plant sources may be performed at the plantation site. Representative samples of prescribed quantity pursuant to Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, as amended, and/or Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2007, as amended, shall be taken from the site after the seizure for laboratory examination, and retained for presentation as the corpus delicti of the seized/confiscated plant sources following the chain of custody of evidence.
A.1.9. Noncompliance, under justifiable grounds, with the requirements of Section 21 (1) of RA No. 9165, as amended, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over the items provided the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team.
A.1.10. Any justification or explanation in cases of noncompliance with the requirements of Section 21 (1) of RA No. 9165, as amended, shall be clearly stated in the sworn statements/affidavits of the apprehending/seizing officers, as well as the steps taken to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized/confiscated items. Certification or record of coordination for operating units other than the PDEA pursuant to Section 86 (a) and (b), Article IX of the IRR of RA No. 9165 shall he presented.
The prosecution, therefore, must establish the following unbroken links in the chain of custody:
First, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the dangerous drug recovered from the suspect by the apprehending officer;
Second, the turnover of the dangerous drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer;
Third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the dangerous drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and
Fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked dangerous drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. 33
The State has the obligation to establish each crucial link in the chain of custody. The first stage in the chain of custody is the marking of the dangerous drugs or related items. Marking, which is the affixing on the dangerous drugs or related items by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his initials or signature or other identifying signs, should be made in the presence of the apprehended violator immediately upon arrest. 34 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. 35
As the Court reviewed the records of the case, we found no testimony that the markings placed in the two sachets of shabu were done by PO2 Villanueva in the presence of Cagas. PO2 Villanueva's testimony only stated that he marked the sachets and then proceeded to the police station. There was also nothing on the record of a threat of assault or retaliation that was present after the exchange of the marked money and the first sachet of shabu, and the subsequent frisking that yielded the second sachet, that would justify the immediate evacuation from the place of operations. On the contrary, it was apparent that there were PAIDSOTG operatives that acted as perimeter security. PO2 Villanueva did not also testify on how the integrity of the seized sachets of shabu were kept intact while on transit to the police station. The testimony of PO2 Villanueva is quoted below:
Q So you gave the 500 pesos to "Toki"?
A Yes, Your Honor.
Q What did he do next?
A After he received the money, Your Honor, he inserted his hand into his pocket and he gave me the sachet.
Q So what happened after he gave you the sachet of suspected shabu?
A I examined, Your Honor.
Q What did you examine?
A The suspected shabu, Your Honor.
Q And what happened next?
A Since it is positive, Your Honor, so I immediately took hold his hands and introduced myself as police officer and pronounced his arrest, Your Honor.
xxx xxx xxx
Q So what did you do with the sachet of suspected shabu that you received from "Toki" if any?
A After I arrested him, Your Honor, the shabu was in my hands I conducted bodily search.
Q And did you get anything or discovered anything or found anything on his body during the search?
A Yes, Your Honor, the bigger sachet and the 500 peso bill.
Q So what happened next?
A After that, Your Honor, I marked the two (2) sachets and then when immediately proceeded to the Dumaguete Police Station, Your Honor, for inventory.
Q So what markings did you place on the sachet of shabu which was subject of the sale, the one that you originally received from "Toki?"
A It was marked "CC-BB-12-17-16," Your Honor.
Q What are the relevance of these markings? What is "CC"?
A Christopher Cagas, Your Honor.
Q And "BB"?
A Buy Bust, Your Honor.
Q And the number?
A Date, Your Honor, December 17, 2016.
Q Where did you place your markings on the suspected sachet of shabu?
A In the masking tape, Your Honor?
Q And aside from these markings, did you place anything on the scotch tape?
A Yes, Your Honor, my signature.
Q So beside the markings, you placed your signature?
A Yes, Your Honor.
Q How about the other item, the bigger sachet which you said you confiscated from the accused "Toki?"
A I also put marking, Your Honor, which is "CC-P-12-17-16" and my signature, Your Honor.
Q You said after these markings you proceeded to the Dumaguete City Police Station?
A We conducted inventory, Your Honor.
Q And you still recall who were the witnesses to the inventory?
A From the media, Your Honor, is Mr. Juancho Gallarde. From barangay official, Your Honor, is Kagawad Eldy Catipay. And for the photographer, Your Honor, is PO2 Pajayat. 36
The Court also finds that the buy-bust team failed to exerts efforts to follow the requirement on having the key witnesses present during the marking and inventory taking. The provision of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is clear that the physical inventory of the seized items and the photographing of the same be done in the presence of the accused or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. It follows that the physical inventory must be witnessed by the individuals mentioned to comply with the requirement of the law. The logic for this is premised on the presumption that this witnesses are disinterested third parties insofar as the buy-bust operation is concerned. 37 Simply put, the law requires the presence of the witnesses primarily to obviate the claim of drug suspects that the law enforcers planted the evidence.
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as expounded by its Guidelines on the IRR, gives a leeway to law enforcers to secure the presence of any elected public official regardless of the place where he or she is elected. This means that the law enforcers could ask elected public officials from other jurisdictions if they fear that valuable information might be leaked. With regard to the members of the media, he or she may be a print or broadcast practitioners. While as to the representative of the National Prosecutorial Service (NPS) he or she could be anyone from the employees of the NPS. 38 The Court feels that whether it is a buy-bust operation or the service of a search warrant to confiscate dangerous drugs, the anti-drug operatives must exert utmost effort to secure the presence of the insulating witnesses. As we had stated in the past, this requirement can easily be complied with by the buy-bust team considering that the buy-bust operation is, by its nature, a planned activity. 39
In the present case, we find that the police operatives did not exert maximum effort to secure the presence of the witnesses as required by law. The team did not also explain their non-compliance with the usual protocols and the steps they have undertaken to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item as required by Section A.1.10 of the Guidelines on the IRR. To the Court's mind the anti-drug operatives belated calling of the representative of the media and the barangay officer is not compliant with the mandate of Section 21 of R.A. 9165 and have created a doubt as to integrity of the two confiscated sachets of shabu.
To be clear, what happened in this case was that the two witnesses were merely summoned after the buy-bust operations and only after the inventory taking. The testimony of Kagawad Eldy Catipay while on cross-examination is enlightening on the crucial procedural lapse committed by the buy-bust team. The pertinent portions of his testimony are reproduced below:
Q How did you know that you will be one of the witnesses in the conduct of the inventory?
A I was called by the police station that I am to sign the inventory made by the police.
Q What time did you receive the call from the police station?
A Around 12:05 AM.
Q So that upon receipt of the said call, you immediately proceeded to the police station, is that correct?
A Yes, Ma'am.
Q And when you arrive, you just affix your signature on the said inventory of properties seized, am I correct?
A Yes, Ma'am.
Q And you signed it at 12:27 AM?
A Yes, Ma'am.
Q At the police station already?
A Yes, Ma'am. x x x
As can be gleaned from the above testimony, the inventory was not even conducted in the presence of witnesses. Procedural safeguards to ensure that no switching or planting of evidence occurred could only be achieved if the witnesses, themselves are present at the time the dangerous drugs are being recorded or given their identity. For the witnesses to appear after inventory would negate the very purpose for which their presence are required by law.
In sum, the Court finds that the prosecution failed to provide valid justification for the buy-bust team's non-compliance with the protocols laid down in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. Thus, the Court rules that the evidentiary value of the corpus delicti, the two sachets of shabu, have been compromised. The Court is left with no other recourse but to acquit Cagas for the failure of the State to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. DETACa
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated July 30, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02567 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Christopher Cagas y Cagas is acquitted for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for any other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director-General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. He is directed to report to this Court, within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution, the action he has taken.
Let an entry of Judgment be issued.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
by:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Edward B. Contreras, with Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos (retired member of this Court) and Associate Justice Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga concurring; rollo, pp. 4-15.
2. Penned by Judge Fe Lualhati D. Bustamante; CA rollo, pp. 42-49.
3. Otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
4.Id. at 42.
5.Id. at 43.
6.Id. at 44.
7.Id. at 44-45.
8.Id. at 45.
9.Id.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 45-46.
12.Id. at 48-49.
13. Records, p. 192.
14. CA rollo, pp. 15-41.
15.Id. at 30.
16.Id. at 37.
17.Id. at 37.
18.Id. at 38.
19.Id. at 71-89.
20.Id. at 80.
21.Id. at 81.
22.Id. at 82.
23.Rollo, p. 15.
24.Id. at 10.
25.Id.
26.Id.
27.Id. at 16.
28.Id. at 19.
29. Cagas submitted a manifestation and motion(in lieu of supplemental brief) on June 26, 2019, rollo, pp. 40-41; The Office of the Solicitor General submitted a manifestation and motion (in lieu of supplemental brief) on June 20, 2019, rollo, pp. 29-31.
30.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017).
31.People v. Viterbo, et al., 739 Phil. 593, 601 (2014).
32. The full title is Guidelines on the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 as Amended by Republic Act No. 10640, May 28, 2015.
33.De Guzman y Reyes v. People, G.R. No. 246327, January 13, 2021.
34.People v. Gonzales, 708 Phil. 121, 130-131 (2013).
35.People v. Reyes y Paulina, G.R. No. 225736, October 15, 2018.
36. TSN, March 16, 2017.
37.People v. Luna, 828 Phil. 671, 689 (2018).
38.Supra note 31.
39.People v. Reyes y Paulina, G.R. No. 225736, October 15, 2018.