THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 234511. July 28, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.MARIA LOURDES CASTILLO, VILMA MANALANG, and DELFIN ROQUE, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 28, 2021, which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 234511 (People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.MariaLourdesCastillo,VilmaManalang, and Delfin Roque, Accused-Appellant.) — This appeal 1 seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision 2 promulgated on 22 May 2017 by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08190. The CA affirmed the Decision 3 dated 02 February 2016 of Branch 135, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, as follows:
(1) In Criminal Case Nos. 15-2365, finding accused-appellant Maria Lourdes Castillo @ "Ludy" (accused-appellant Castillo), guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165; 4 in Criminal Case No. 15-2366, finding accused-appellant Vilma Manalang @ "Vilma" (accused-appellant Manalang) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165;
(2) In Criminal Case No. 15-2367, finding accused-appellant Castillo guilty beyond reasonable of violation of Section 12, Article II of RA 9165;
(3) In Criminal Case No. 15-2368, finding accused-appellant Reynaldo Argota y Macalinao @ "Rey" (accused Argota), guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 15, Article II of RA 9165;
(4) In Criminal Case No. 15-3709, finding accused-appellant Castillo and accused-appellant Delfin Roque @ "Ogie" (accused-appellant Roque), guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 6, 5 Article II of RA 9165; and
(5) In Criminal Case No. 15-3710, finding accused Argota guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 7, 6 Article II of RA 9165.
Antecedents
Accused-appellants Castillo and Roque were charged for Violation of Sections 6, 11, and 12, Article II of RA 9165, in three (3) separate Informations, the accusatory portions of which reads:
Criminal Case No. 15-2365
"On the 26th day of June 2015, in the city of Makati, the Philippines, accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess or otherwise use any dangerous drug and without the corresponding prescription, conspiring and confederating together, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have in their possession, direct custody and control twenty-three point three seven two seven (23.3727) gram(s), eighteen point nine seven five five (18.9755) gram(s), eleven point three seven two seven (11.3727) gram(s), three point five one three three (3.5133) gram(s), eight point nine three eight seven (8.9387) gram(s) or a total of sixty-six point one seven two nine 66.1729 grams of white crystalline substance containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW." 7
Criminal Case No. 15-2367
"On the 26th day of June 2015, in the city of Makati, the Philippines, accused, not being authorized to carry drug paraphernalia, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have in their possession, direct custody and control two pieces lighters, one piece syringe, one digital weighing scale, one piece scissors, four improvised tooters, one piece folded aluminum foil, six pieces of rolled aluminum strips and several pieces of rolled aluminum strips, which are instruments, apparatuses or paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering or introducing any dangerous drug into the body in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW." 8
Criminal Case No. 15-3709
"On the 26th day of June 2015, in the city of Makati, the Philippines, accused conspiring and confederating together and both of them mutually helping and aiding one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously maintain a den in the house of Maria Lourdes y Castillo and Delfin Roque y Cruz, located at No. 5086 San Antonio Street, Pio del Pilar, Makati City, for purpose of distribution, sale or use of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW." 9
An Information for Violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 was filed against accused-appellant Manalang, the accusatory portion of which reads:
Criminal Case No. 15-2366
"On the 26th day of June 2015, in the city of Makati, the Philippines, accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess or otherwise use any dangerous drug and without the corresponding prescription, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have in her possession, direct custody and control eleven point four eight three five (11.4835) grams of white crystalline substance containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW."10
Separate Informations were likewise filed against accused Argota, Efren Manalang, Jr. (Manalang, Jr.), and Gilmar Tormis (Tormis) for violation of Section 7, and Argota for violation of Section 15, Article II of RA 9165.
Upon arraignment, accused-appellants Castillo, Roque, Manalang 11 and accused Argota pleaded not guilty to the charges against them. After termination of pre-trial, trial on the merits then ensued. 12
Version of the Prosecution
On 17 June 2015, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) operatives conducted a test-buy operation at the house being occupied by a certain alias "Ludy," alias "Ogie," accused-appellants Roque and Castillo, and their cohorts at 5086 San Antonio St. Pio del Pilar, Makati City (subject house). PDEA Agent Cesar Dealaydon (Agent Dealaydon) 13 was able to buy from accused-appellant Roque, a dangerous drug weighing 0.0485 gram which upon testing was found positive for shabu. Accordingly, an application for search warrant was filed by the PDEA agents before the RTC of Manila. 14
In the afternoon of 26 June 2015, Director Erwin S. Ogario conducted a briefing with the PDEA agents relative to the implementation of the search warrants on the subject house. The said house was verified to be a drug den, being managed by accused-appellants Castillo and Roque, where they also sell, offer, and allow drug users the use and administration of drugs. Agent John Jerme Almerino (Agent Almerino) was designated as the team leader, with Agent Al Vincent Delgado (Agent Delgado) as seizing officer and Agents Marc Junef Avenido (Agent Avenido) and Mark Erik Espiritu (Agent Espiritu) as back-up/arresting officers. 15
After coordination with the Southern Police District, the team summoned the presence of Barangay Kagawad Cesar Parrucho (Brgy. Kgd. Parrucho) and media representative, Ivy Rivera (Rivera) before proceeding to the area. Upon their arrival, they noticed four (4) male persons having a pot session at the ground floor of the subject house. One of the men, later identified as accused Argota, attempted to escape but was subdued and arrested together with the other male individuals by the PDEA agents.
The team then went up to the second floor to neutralize any possible threats. Agents Delgado and Avenido entered a room and saw accused-appellants Castillo and Manalang hurriedly trying to pile up some laundry at the corner of the room. Agent Delgado noticed accused-appellant Manalang holding a gray and black colored card-holder on her right hand. He instructed accused-appellant Manalang to open the card holder. A plastic sachet with suspected shabu was found inside the said card holder. Thereafter, the team with accused-appellants Castillo and Manalang went down to the ground floor and they were gathered together with the other male persons earlier arrested; accused-appellant Roque, accused Manalang, Jr., accused Argota and accused Tormis. 16
While at the ground floor, agents Avenido and Espiritu noticed several aluminum foils and other drug paraphernalia scattered at the ground floor which Agent Delgado immediately seized. Agent Delgado then started to search the room located at the second floor in the presence of accused-appellants Castillo and Manalang, Brgy. Kgd. Parrucho and media representative Rivera. During their search, they found a multi-colored box which contained several pieces of plastic sachets with white crystalline substance; they likewise discovered a brown paper bag full of brown envelopes containing plastic sachets with white crystalline substance; they likewise found drug paraphernalia such as chopsticks, lighter, syringe, improvised tooter, digital weighing scale, and a pair of scissors.
The seized evidence were then marked, photographed, and inventoried in the premises, in the presence of all the accused, Brgy. Kgd. Parrucho, and Rivera, the media representative. They proceeded to the PDEA office for documentation. Later, Agent Delgado brought the plastic sachets with suspected shabu to the PDEA laboratory for qualitative examination and brought the non-drug items to the Evidence Custodian, Louie Salvador Lopez. 17
Upon examination by PDEA Chemist John Edward Bertillo (Chemist Bertillo), the specimens were found positive to the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride while only accused-appellant Roque and accused Argota were found positive for the use of metamphetamine hydrochloride, after the screening and confirmatory test. 18
Version of the Defense
Accused-appellants Castillo, Manalang, Roque, as well as accused Argot, denied the charges against them. They claimed that in the afternoon of 26 June 2015, a group of armed men entered their garage. The armed men immediately headed to the second floor without asking permission, and directed accused-appellant Manalang to come out of the bathroom. Said armed men asked for accused-appellant Manalang's identification card which the latter readily surrendered. Accused-appellants Manalang and Castillo were then taken to the ground floor were they were handcuffed, and they noticed that some men whose arms were raised, arrived together with some armed men. The armed men brought accused-appellants Castillo and Manalang to the second floor where their pictures were taken beside a table full of plastic sachets on top. They were then boarded inside a van and were brought to the PDEA Headquarters and later to Camp Crame for drug test and medical examination. Thereafter, they were brought back to the PDEA Office where they were incarcerated for several days. 19
According to accused-appellant Roque, he was standing outside a gambling house at around 5:00 P.M. of 26 June 2015 when a police officer approached him and asked him if he was "Ogie." When he answered in the affirmative, the police officers handcuffed and dragged him to the house of accused-appellant Castillo. He, together with the other arrested persons, was ordered to lie down facing the floor, and was later boarded inside a van and was taken to the PDEA Headquarters. They were also brought to Camp Crame for medical examination and drug test and were then detained at the Makati City Jail. 20
Ruling of the RTC
On 02 February 2016, the RTC rendered its Decision, convicting accused-appellants of the offenses charged, thus:
"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:
1.) In Criminal Case No. 15-2365, finding the accused MARIA LOURDES CASTILLO ALIAS "Ludy" GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT for Violation of Section 11 Article II of R.A. 9165, considering that the quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) recovered from her possession is more than fifty (50) grams, judgment is hereby rendered sentencing said accused to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of five hundred thousand pesos (Php500,000.00) and to pay the costs; as regards to her co-accused DELFIN ROQUE y CRUZ alias "Ogie, for failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the said accused beyond reasonable doubt, lie is hereby ACQUITTED for Violation of Section 11 of R.A. 9165;
2.) In Criminal Case No. 15-2366, finding the accused VILMA MANALANG y ANGUSTIA (a) "Vilma" GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT for Violation of Section 11 Article II of R.A. 9165, considering that the quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) recovered from her possession is more than ten grams (10) grams but less than fifty (50) grams, judgment is hereby rendered sentencing said accused to life imprisonment and to pay a line of four hundred thousand pesos (Php400,000.00) and to pay the costs.
3.) In Criminal Case No. 15-2367, finding the accused MARIA LOURDES CASTILLO alias @ "Ludy" GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT for Violation of Section 12 Article II of R.A. 9165, judgment is hereby rendered sentencing said accused to suffer a penalty of imprisonment for six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and to pay a fine of ten thousand pesos (Php10,000.00), as regards to her co-accused DELFIN ROQUE y CRUZ alias "Ogie", for failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the said accused beyond reasonable doubt, he is hereby ACQUITTED for Violation of Section 12 of R.A. 9165;
4.) In Criminal Case No. 15-2368, finding the accused REYNALDO ARGOTA y MACALINAO @ "Rey" GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT for Violation of Section 15 Article II of R.A. 9165, judgment is hereby rendered sentencing said accused a minimum penalty of six (6) months rehabilitation in a government center being a first offender;
5.) In Criminal Case No. 15-3709, finding the accused MARIA LOURDES CASTILLO @ "Ludy" and DELFIN ROQUE y CRUZ alias "Ogie GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT for violation of Section 6 of R.A. 9165, judgment is hereby rendered sentencing each of the accused the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of five hundred thousand (Php500,000.00) pesos; and
6.) In Criminal Case No. 15-3710, finding the accused REYNALDO ARGOTA y MACALINAO GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT for violation of Section 7 of R.A. 9165, judgment is hereby rendered sentencing the said accused the penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day of imprisonment and to pay a fine of one hundred thousand (Php100,000.00) pesos.
xxx xxx xxx
SO ORDERED." 21
In convicting accused-appellants, the RTC held that the elements of possession of illegal drugs against accused-appellants Castillo and Manalang were duly proven. Accused-appellant Castillo was found to be in constructive possession of the plastic sachets with shabu found in her room. Accused-appellant Manalang, on the other hand, was found in possession of a card holder with a plastic sachet with shabu inside. The RTC likewise found that the corpus delicti was established with moral certainty. The guilt of accused Argota for violation of Section 15 was likewise established as the urine sample taken from the latter turned positive for the presence of shabu. The guilt of accused-appellants Castillo and Roque for violation of Section 6 of RA 9165 was likewise established. The test-buy conducted by the agents confirmed that the house of accused-appellant Castillo was being used as a den for the purpose of distribution, sale, or use of shabu. The guilt of accused Argota for violation of Section 7 of RA 9165 was also established as he was caught by agents Delgado and Avenido while he was engaged in a pot session. 22
The RTC acquitted accused-appellant Roque of violation of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of RA 9165, on reasonable doubt. Likewise, Criminal Case No. 15-3710 filed against accused Manalang, Jr., and Tormis was ordered to be sent to the archives pending their arrest. 23
Aggrieved, accused-appellants appealed to the CA.
Ruling of the CA
In its Decision dated 22 May 2017, the CA affirmed accused-appellants' and accused Argota's convictions. The dispositive portion of said decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated February 2, 2016 of the RTC, Branch 135, Makati City in Criminal Case Nos. 15-2365, 15-2366, 15-2367, 15-2368, 15-3709 and 15-3710 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 24
The CA held that the search warrant was properly issued and implemented. It sustained the RTC's findings that the prosecution has duly established accused-appellants and accused Argota's guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the respective charges against them. The RTC held that there was substantial compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 and that the integrity of the evidence has not been compromised from the time of seizure until the same was presented in court. The CA disregarded accused-appellants' defense of denial and frame-up, absent any showing of ill motive on the part of the PDEA agents. 25
Hence, this appeal.
Issue
The sole issue in this case is whether the CA correctly affirmed accused-appellants' respective conviction for Violation of Sections 6, 11, 12, Article II of RA 9165.
Ruling of the Court
The appeal is partly granted.
In every prosecution of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must endeavor to establish the following elements: accused was in possession of the dangerous drug without authority of law, and the accused freely and consciously possessed the dangerous drug. 26 Likewise, in order to obtain a conviction for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia, the prosecution must establish the following elements: possession or control by the accused of any equipment, apparatus, or other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body, and such possession is not authorized by law. 27
In the course of implementing the search warrant in the room of occupied by accused-appellant Castillo, the PDEA agents found a multicolored box with several pieces of plastic sachets with shabu, a brown paper bag full of brown envelopes containing plastic sachets with shabu, with a combined weight of 66.1729 grams. They likewise found drug paraphernalia such as chopsticks, lighter, syringe, improvised tooter, digital weighing scale and a pair of scissors. Agent Delgado also noticed that accused-appellant Manalang was holding a gray and black colored card-holder which upon opening had a plastic sachet with 11.4835 gram of shabu inside. Likewise, at the ground floor, agents Avenido and Espiritu noticed several aluminum foils and other drug paraphernalia scattered at the place where accused-appellant Roque and accused Argota, Manalang, Jr., and Tormis were arrested.
The finding of a dangerous drug in the house or within the premises of the house of accused-appellant Castillo is prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi and is enough to convict in the absence of a satisfactory explanation. 28 The fact that accused-appellant Castillo had dominion over the place gives rise to the presumption that she had dominion over the drug itself including the various drug paraphernalia. We thus affirm the findings of the lower courts that the prosecution, based on the evidence on record, was able to prove that accused-appellant Castillo knowingly possessed illegal drugs and various drug paraphernalia in her house without any lawful authority. The same is true for accused-appellant Manalang who consciously possessed the sachet of shabu in her card holder without any authority to possess it.
We also sustain accused-appellants Castillo and Roque's conviction for violation of Section 6 of RA 9165. It was sufficiently established that the subject house occupied by Castillo and Roque was being used as a den for the purpose of distribution, sale, or use of dangerous drugs. Prior to the implementation of the search warrant, Agent Delgado was able to confirm the said fact through an earlier test-buy he conducted at the subject house. There, he was able to buy Php500.00 worth of shabu from accused-appellant Roque. 29 Further, in the implementation of the search warrant, sachets of shabu and drug paraphernalia were found in accused-appellant Castillo's room while accused Argota, together with his companions was caught engaged in pot session in the said premises.
Undaunted, accused-appellants assail the validity of the search warrant for the first time on appeal. They argue that the application for the subject search warrant was illegal. It was filed in Manila City and not in Makati City, where the test-buy operations were conducted, which was outside RTC Manila's territorial jurisdiction. It was also the accused-appellants' postulation that Agent Simbulan was not authorized to apply for a search warrant by himself, not being personally endorsed by the heads of the agencies enumerated under the rule. 30
We are not persuaded.
It is settled that a party cannot raise in the appellate court any question of law or of fact that was not raised in the court below or which was not within the issue raised by the parties in their pleadings. 31 Same notwithstanding, We find that the application for search warrant is valid and consistent with the established legal procedure. Section 12, Chapter V of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC clearly authorizes the Executive Judges and the Vice-Executive Judges of the RTC of Manila and Quezon City to issue search warrants to be served in places outside their territorial jurisdiction in special criminal cases such as those involving heinous crimes, illegal gambling, illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions, as well as violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Act of 2002. 32 Likewise, A.M. No. 08-4-4-SC 33 has amended AM No. 03-8-02-SC. The 2nd paragraph of Section 12, Chapter V now provides that the applications (for search warrant) shall be endorsed by the head of such agencies or their respective duly authorized officials. The Regional Director of the PDEA, therefore, was not precluded from authorizing Agent Simbulan to apply for a search warrant before the RTC of Manila.
Accused-appellants also posit that the chain of custody rule was not complied as the evidence custodian was not presented in court and that the stipulated testimony of the forensic chemist does not cover the manner as to how the specimens were handled before and after it came to the latter's possession. 34
Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, 35 the applicable law at the time of the commission of the offenses, 36 requires, among others, that: the marking, physical inventory, and photograph-taking of the seized items be conducted immediately after the seizure and confiscation of the same. It was made compulsory that the physical inventory and photograph-taking be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well these required witnesses: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA No. 9165 by RA No. 10640 on 07 August 2014, 37 "a representative from the media AND the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official"; or (b) if after said amendment, "[an] elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service OR the media." 38
The Court upholds the common findings of the RTC and CA that there was compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, as to the preservation and disposition of the seized shabu as well as the chain of custody requirements. The seized items were marked, inventoried and photographed, upon seizure and in the presence of accused-appellants, accused, Brgy. Kgd. Parrucho and media representative Rivera. The recovered evidence were all brought to the PDEA for documentation and later, the drug evidence were brought by Agent Delgado to the PDEA laboratory for examination. Upon examination of Chemist Bertillo, he sealed the same and turned it over to the evidence custodian for safe keeping. 39
While Chemist Bertillo and the evidence custodian were not presented in court, their non-presentation does not constitute as a gap in the chain of custody rule. In People v. Padua, 40 it was held that not all who came in contact with the seized item are required to testify in court. After all, there is nothing in RA 9165 or any rule implementing the same that imposes such requirement.
However, while the prosecution was able to establish accused-appellant Castillo's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, mere possession of drug paraphernalia is not enough to convict accused-appellant Castillo under Section 12, Article II of RA 9165. In Cuico v. People, 41 it was held that while it is true that Section 12 of RA 9165 punishes the possession of drug paraphernalia, it does not mean that forensic testing may completely be dispensed with.
Section 21 (2) of RA 9165 provides, thus:
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination.
Agent Delgado surrendered the drug paraphernalia to the evidence custodian Lopez 42 and not to the crime laboratory for qualitative and quantitative examination as mandated. Thus, there was no proof as to whether the various drug paraphernalia have traces of illegal drug, to support the conclusion that they were used or intended to be used as drug paraphernalia. Without a laboratory examination of the alleged drug paraphernalia confirming traces of illegal drugs, there exists a reasonable ground to believe that said items were possessed for lawful purposes. 43
All the foregoing considered, the Court affirms the conviction of: accused-appellant Castillo for the offense of Violation of Sections 6 and 11, Article II of RA 9165; accused-appellant Manalang for the offense of Violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 and accused-appellant Roque for Violation of Section 6, Article II of RA 9165. The Court likewise affirms the penalties imposed by the CA for being in accordance with the law. However, the Court acquits accused-appellant Castillo for the offense of violation of Section 12, Article II of RA 9165 on the ground of reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is partly granted. The Decision dated 22 May 2017 of the CA in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08190 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The conviction of: accused-appellant Maria Lourdes Castillo @ "Ludy" for Violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 in Criminal Case No. 15-2365; accused-appellant Vilma Manalang @ "Vilma" for Violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 in Criminal Case No. 15-2366; accused Reynaldo Argota y Macalinao @ "Rey" for Violation of Section 15, Article II of RA 9165 in Criminal Case No. 15-2368; accused-appellants Ma. Lourdes Castillo @ "Ludy" and Delfin Roque y Cruz @ "Ogie" for violation of Section 6, Article II of RA 9165 in Criminal Case No. 15-3709 and accused Reynaldo Argota y Macalinao @ "Rey" for Violation of Section 7, Article II of RA 9165 in Criminal Case No. 15-3710 is AFFIRMED. However, for failure of the prosecution to establish accused-appellant Castillo's guilt for violation of Section 12, Article II of RA 9165, accused-appellant Maria Lourdes Castillo @ "Ludy" is ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. 15-2367.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women for immediate implementation. The Superintendent is directed to report to this Court, within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution, the action she 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.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 27-28, see Notice of Appeal dated 27 June 2017.
2. Id. at 02-26; penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando, with Associate Justices Mario V. Lopez (now a member of this Court) and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. of the Second Division, Court of Appeals, concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 58-71; penned by Presiding Judge Josephine M. Advento.
4. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
5. Maintenance of a Den, Dive or Resort.
6. Employees and Visitors of a Den, Dive or Resort.
7. Rollo, p. 5.
8. Id.
9. Id. at 6.
10. Id. at 6.
11. Collectively referred to as, "accused-appellants."
12. Rollo, pp. 7-8.
13. Also referred to as Agent Dealaydon, Jr. in some parts of the records.
14. CA rollo, p. 62.
15. Id. at 62-63.
16. Id. at 63-64.
17. Id. at 64-65.
18. Id. at 65.
19. Id. at 65-66.
20. Id. at 66.
21. Id. at 69-71.
22. Id. at 68-69.
23. Id. at 70-71.
24. Rollo, p. 25.
25. Id. at 23-24.
26. People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21 (2017).
27. People v. Lumaya, G.R. No. 231983, 07 March 2018.
28. People v. Torre, 533 Phil. 227 (2006).
29. CA rollo, p. 69.
30. Id. at 48-53.
31. People v. Mamaril, 646 Phil. 660 (2010).
32. People v. Punzalan, 773 Phil. 72 (2015).
33. Re: Request of Police Director General Avelino I. Razon for Authority to delegate the endorsement of application for Search Warrant.
34. CA rollo, p. 53.
35. An Act to Further Strengthen the Anti-Drug Campaign of the Government, Amending for the Purpose Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, Otherwise Known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, approved on 15 July 2014.
36. The Information alleged that the offenses were committed on 26 June 2015.
37. See People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 236304, 05 November 2018.
38. People v. Bangalan, G.R No. 232249, 03 September 2018.
39. CA rollo, pp. 64-65.
40. 639 Phil. 235, 251.
41. G.R. No. 232293, 09 December 2020.
42. TSN, 08 December 2015, Witness Al Vincent Delgado, pp. 43-44.
43. Cuico v. People, G.R. No. 232293, 09 December 2020.