THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243023. December 9, 2020.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,vs. GILBERT CASTRO y YANGA AND GERARDO VILLASENIOR y PEREZ, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedDecember 9, 2020, which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 243023 (People of the Philippines v. Gilbert Castro y Yanga and Gerardo Villasenior y Perez). — This is an appeal assailing the Decision 1 dated July 11, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09319, which affirmed the Joint Judgment 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 224 for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Facts
On August 6, 2016, three separate Informations were filed with the RTC against defendants-appellants Gilbert Castro y Yanga (Castro) and Gerardo Villasenior y Perez (Villasenior) for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165 — (1) Section 11 (Illegal Possession) for Castro in R-QZN-16-08617-CR, (2) Section 5 (Illegal Sale) for both Castro and Villasenior in R-QZN-16-08618-CR, and (3) Section 11 for Villasenior in R-QZN-16-08619-CR. The Informations state:
R-QZN-16-08617-CR
That on or about the 5th day of August 2016, in Quezon City, the said accused, not being authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession and control, one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing zero point zero five (0.05) gram with markings "AD GC 08-05-16" of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, [a] dangerous drug.
R-QZN-16-08618-CR
That on or about the 5th day of August 2016, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping each other, without lawful authority, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport or act as a broker in said transaction, dangerous drugs, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing zero point zero five (0.05) gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride with markings "CS GC 08-05-16," a dangerous drug.
R-QZN-16-08619-CR
That on or about the 5th day of August 2016, in Quezon City, the said accused, not being authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession and control, two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet each containing to wit:
(0.04) gram with markings "(AD GV-1 08-05-16)"
(0.05) gram with markings ''(AD GV-1 08-05-16)"
(0.09) zero point zero nine gram total net weight
of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, [a] dangerous drug. 3
In an Order dated August 12, 2016, the RTC granted the prosecution's Motion for Consolidation since the cases were closely related, founded on the same facts and would require common evidence. 4
On August 26, 2016, Castro and Villasenior pleaded not guilty upon arraignment. Trial on the merits ensued. 5
The prosecution presented six witnesses: (1) SPO1 Marlon Tan (SPO1 Tan), investigator; (2) PO2 Christopher Sac (PO2 Sac), poseur-buyer; (3) PO1 Alvin Daulayan (PO1 Daulayan), arresting officer; (4) PO1 Jocelyn De Guia (PO1 De Guia), back-up/coordinator; (5) PO3 Anthony Andres Centeno (PO3 Centeno), driver/back-up; and (6) PCI Bernardo Que 6 (PCI Que), forensic chemist. 7
The prosecution established that on August 5, 2016, at the Galas Police Station in Quezon City, PO2 Sac, PO1 Daulayan and their colleagues received information from their confidential informant (CI) that Castro and Villasenior were spotted selling drugs along Bustamante St., Brgy. Sto. Niño, Quezon City. The information was first relayed to SPO2 Arnold Renoza then to PSI Navarro, their Station Commander and Chief of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs. PSI Navarro conducted a briefing regarding surveillance, validation and possible buy-bust operation. The buy-bust team provided a Coordination Form and Pre-Operation Report signed by the Chief of the Police Station. 8
PO2 Sac was designated as the poseur-buyer and was given a P100.00 bill as buy-bust money. He placed his initial "CS" on the bill. As pre-arranged signal to the buy-bust team, Castro would remove his bull cap. Then, the CI, with the buy-bust team beside him, contacted the suspected dealer of the illegal drugs and ordered P100.00 worth of shabu. Thereafter, PO2 Sac and the CI headed to the agreed meeting place. 9
Around 3:47 in the afternoon, the buy-bust team dispatched near Bustamante St. and positioned themselves within five to eight meters viewing distance from the target area. At about 5:30 in the afternoon, the team spotted the suspects and immediately, PO2 Sac and the CI approached Castro and Villasenior. The CI introduced PO2 Sac as "Toto," a tricycle driver who wanted to buy shabu. PO2 Sac pulled out the P100.00 bill and handed it over to Castro. Castro gave him a small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. Castro handed the P100.00 bill to Villasenior. PO2 Sac then removed his bull cap as a signal that the drug deal was consummated. Thereafter, PO1 Daulayan approached, introduced himself as a police officer and arrested Castro and Villasenior. PO1 Daulayan recovered the P100.00 bill buy-bust money and two small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance on the right side pocket of Villasenior's short pants. Also, PO1 Daulayan confiscated one small heat-scaled transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance from Castro's maong short pants' left pocket. 10
After the arrest, the police officers brought Castro and Villasenior to the barangay hall of Sto. Niño, Quezon City. While on their way to the Barangay Hall, PO1 Daulayan kept the plastic sachets in his possession. Upon arrival, he placed the corresponding markings (1) those recovered from Villasenior — "AD GV-3 08-05-16" for the P100.00 bill buy-bust money, and "AD GV-1 08-05-16" and "AD GV-2 08-05-16" for the two plastic sachets; and (2) recovered from Castro — "AD GC 08-05-16" for one plastic sachet. PO2 Sac placed the marking "CS GC 08-05-16" on the plastic sachet he bought and received from Castro. 11 The police officers then conducted an inventory of the plastic sachets, took photographs, and prepared a written inventory of the seized items which were signed by PO1 Daulayan, PO2 Sac, SPO1 Tan, and Barangay Chair Sergio Gonzalgo (Gonzalgo). 12
Afterwards, the team proceeded to the police station. PO1 Daulayan turned over the plastic sachets to SPO1 Tan and signed a Chain of Custody Form. SPO1 Tan prepared the other documents necessary for filing of the case. 13
During the trial, PO1 Daulayan identified (1) Castro and Villasenior in open court, and (2) the plastic sachets containing the white crystalline substance as the ones recovered from Castro and Villasenior during the buy-bust operation. 14
The testimonies of SPO1 Tan, PO1 de Guia, and PO3 Centeno, were stipulated upon and admitted by the defense:
1. SPO1 Tan — that he conducted the investigation on the case and prepared the referral letter, affidavit of apprehension, sworn statement of PO2 Sac, inventory report, chain of custody form, request for laboratory examination of the specimen, request for drug test, request for physical examination and the booking sheet form; 15
2. PO1 de Guia and PO3 Centeno — that they were part of the Task Force, their names were listed in the Coordination Form, that PO3 Centeno was the driver of one of the vehicles used in the operations, and PO1 de Guia acted as one of the coordinators holding one of the radios used during the operation; 16
3. Forensic Chemist PCI Que — that
a) he conducted an examination on all the recovered specimens,
b) prepared the initial laboratory report, laboratory examination request, the chain of custody form, request for drug test and the final chemistry report,
c) brought the seized specimens to the crime laboratory, and
d) placed his own markings on the specimens and took possession of the same. 17
The defense presented the testimonies of Castro and Villasenior. Villasenior denied all the charges against him and stated that he was working as a driver of Sto. Domingo Diagnostic Medical Center at the time. Villasenior averred that on August 5, 2016, he took the company vehicle, a Mitsubishi L300 van, to a motor repair shop of a certain Nani located at Bustamante St., Brgy. Sto. Niño, Quezon City. Upon arrival, he went upstairs and talked to a certain Dona, Nani's wife, who informed him that Nani left the house. Thereafter, a hugely built man (who later turned out to be Brgy. Kagawad Eduardo Libid) went upstairs accompanied by police officers and suddenly arrested him and his co-accused, Castro, who just came out of the comfort room. Both of them were subjected to body frisking and a key was recovered from him. They were then brought inside a room where the plastic sachets were placed on top of the table. They were forcibly made to point to the plastic sachets one by one while photographs were taken. Villasenior added that he first met PO2 Sac and Brgy. Kagawad Libid when he was apprehended for the alleged sale and possession of illegal drugs. He stated that he had no altercation with them yet he was falsely accused of a serious offense. 18
Castro testified that Brgy. Kagawad Libid went to his house and asked that he go with him because the Commanding Officer of the Galas Police Station wanted to see him. He first went to the comfort room and after stepping out wearing only his maong short pants, he was immediately arrested and handcuffed by police officers. Castro stated that he was brought to his room and on top of the bed were plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance, a foil and a lighter. He was forcibly made to point at each object while photographs were taken. Afterwards, he was brought to the police station where he was subjected to a body frisk. The amount of P700.00 was recovered from him. Castro added that he met PO2 Sac, PO1 Daulayan and Brgy. Kagawad Libid for the first time on August 5, 2016 and that he had no previous altercation with them. Castro admitted taking illegal drugs prior to his arrest. 19
Ruling of the RTC
In a Joint Judgment 20 dated October 28, 2016, the RTC convicted Castro and Villasenior for the offense charged. The dispositive portion states:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. R-QZN-16-08617-CR, the Court finds accused GILBERT CASTRO y YANGA a.k.a. "Aba Castro," GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act 9165, and is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY, as minimum, to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS and EIGHT (8) MONTHS, as maximum, and to PAY A FINE of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php300,000.00);
2. In Criminal Case No. R-QZN-16-08618-CR, the Court finds both accused GERARDO VILLASENIOR y PEREZ a.k.a. "Henry Villasenior" and accused GILBERT CASTRO y YANGA a.k.a. "Aba Castro," GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165, and are hereby sentenced each to suffer life imprisonment and to PAY A FINE of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php500,000.00);
3. In Criminal Case No. R-QZN-16-08619-CR, the Court finds accused GERARDO VILLASENIOR y PEREZ a.k.a. "Henry Villasenior," GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act 9165, and is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY, as minimum, to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS and EIGHT (8) MONTHS, as maximum, and to PAY A FINE of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php300,000.00).
The Officer-In-Charge of this Court is DIRECTED to immediately turn over to the Chief of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency Crime Laboratory, the subject drugs covered by Chemistry Report No. D-972-16 to be disposed of in strict conformity with the provisions of Republic Act No. 9165 and its implementing rules and regulations on the matter.
Let the corresponding Mittimus be issued for the commitment of the two accused to the National Bilibid Prison for service of sentence.
SO ORDERED. 21
The RTC ruled that the prosecution proved all the elements necessary for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. For the illegal sale, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses showed that Castro and Villasenior were caught inflagrante delicto selling shabu during a buy-bust operation and that the sale transaction of dangerous drugs was consummated. The witnesses positively identified (1) Castro and Villasenior as the ones who sold shabu to PO2 Sac, as poseur-buyer, and (2) the four plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance which they marked during the buy-bust operation. For the illegal possession, after Castro and Villasenior were caught, arresting officer PO1 Daulayan recovered two plastic sachets on Villasenior's short pants and one plastic sachet on Castro's short pants. 22
The RTC declared that the prosecution was able to show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs sold and seized had been preserved. After the buy-bust operation, the team proceeded to the barangay hall where they marked and took photographs of the seized items. An inventory was conducted which was witnessed by Barangay Chairman Gonzalgo. After the inventory, PO1 Daulayan kept the seized items in his custody and the team headed to the police station. Upon arrival at the police station, PO1 Daulayan handed over the seized items to SPO1 Tan, the investigator on duty, who brought the items to the crime laboratory. PCI Que received the specimens which were found positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. 23
The RTC stated that the failure of the arresting team to immediately mark, photograph and inventory the drugs at the place of arrest and the absence of the Department of Justice (DOJ) representative during the inventory did not render the drugs inadmissible in evidence. 24
The RTC added that the defenses of denial and alibi, which are negative and self-serving, cannot prevail over the positive identification made by credible prosecution witnesses who showed no ill motive to testify against the accused. 25
Castro and Villasenior filed an appeal with the CA.
Ruling of the CA
In a Decision dated July 11, 2018, the CA affirmed the findings of the RTC. The CA declared that the allegation of the defense that the police officers failed to faithfully comply with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 was justified by the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items by the apprehending officers. The CA added that the prosecution was able to show an unbroken chain of custody, from the testimonies of each person who handled the confiscated items and the documentary evidence supporting the said testimonies, by specifically tracing the movement of the shabu from the time they were seized until presented in court. 26
Hence, this petition.
The Issue
Whether or not the CA erred in finding Castro and Villasenior guilty of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165.
The Court's Ruling
The petition is meritorious.
The Court, after a careful review of the records of the case, resolves to acquit Castro and Villasenior on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to prove that the buy-bust team complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, 27 the applicable law at the time of the commission of the alleged crime.
To secure a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the prosecution must establish (1) that the transaction or sale took place, and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence. On the other hand, the essential elements necessary for a conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 are (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possesses the said drug. Similarly, the evidence of the corpus delicti must be established beyond reasonable doubt. 28
The elements mentioned above, other than the corpus delicti, were satisfactorily proven by the prosecution. On the illegal sale, PO2 Sac, as the poseur-buyer, positively identified Castro and Villasenior as the persons who sold to him the subject shabu in exchange for a P100.00 bill during a buy-bust operation. The prosecution presented as evidence the seized items which tested positive for dangerous drugs. As for illegal possession, the prosecution established that after the arrest, PO1 Daulayan found unauthorized dangerous drugs on Castro and Villasenior's respective short pants which were marked, identified and brought to court.
Thus, it is the corpus delicti or the dangerous drug itself which is the issue at hand. While a buy-bust operation is a legally effective and proven procedure, sanctioned by law for apprehending drug peddlers and distributors, the law nevertheless requires strict compliance with procedures laid down by it to ensure that rights are safeguarded. 29
In order to preserve the chain of custody of evidence in drugs cases, Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, spells out the mandatory procedural safeguards in a buy-bust operation as follows:
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 person/s 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. (Emphasis supplied)
It is clear that the provision requires that: (1) the seized items must be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure and confiscation at the place where the search warrant was served or at the place of arrest (in warrantless arrest cases, like in this case) or at the nearest police station; and (2) the physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of (a) the accused, (b) an elected public official, and (c) a representative from the DOJ or the media, 30 all of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy.
In applying the need for an exacting compliance with Section 21, the prosecution clearly failed to comply with the requirements of the chain of custody rule in this case.
First, after the warrantless arrest and confiscation, the apprehending officers did not immediately conduct a physical inventory of the seized items or took photographs of the same at the place of arrest. Instead, they brought Castro and Villasenior at the Barangay Hall of Brgy. Sto. Niño, Quezon City. It was at the Barangay Hall where the police officers marked the seized items, took photographs and conducted a physical inventory. The prosecution did not give a sufficient explanation as to why the police officers had to change location and not faithfully comply with the mandate of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165.
Under the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165, the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items may be done "at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable." Clearly, the Barangay Hall is not an alternative.
While exceptions may be considered under justifiable grounds, the prosecution must be able to prove such justification. In People v. Lim, 31 We held that the law enforcement officers must state in the sworn statements/affidavits the justifiable grounds for non-compliance with the requirements, as well as the steps taken to preserve the identity and evidentiary value of the seized/confiscated items. The justifiable situations 32 enumerated were:
It must be alleged and proved that the presence of the witnesses to the physical inventory and photograph of the illegal drug seized was not obtained due to reason/s such as:
(1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area;
(2) their safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf;
(3) the elected official themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended;
(4) earnest efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ or media representative and an elected public official within the period required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or
(5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations, which often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before the offenders could escape.
However, in this case, the police officers failed to issue any sworn statements and furnish adequate grounds for their non-compliance.
Second, while on their way to the Barangay Hall, PO1 Daulayan kept the plastic sachets in his possession.
In People v. Sultan, 33 We held that this alone cannot be taken as a guarantee of the items' integrity. On the contrary, an officer's act of personally and bodily keeping allegedly seized items, without any clear indication of safeguards other than his or her mere possession, has been viewed as prejudicial to the integrity of the items.
Third, only Barangay Chair Gonzalgo, an elected public official, was present during the inventory and taking of photographs. However, during the search and arrest, he was not present. Neither was the representative from the DOJ or media present during the arrest, markings, taking of photographs and inventory.
In several cases, 34 We held that the required witnesses must not only be present during the inventory and taking of photographs, but as early as the seizure of items. The purpose of the witnesses is necessary to protect against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug. This situation would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug.
Last, the buy-bust team had enough time to comply with the requirement of securing the attendance of a representative from the DOJ or media who will serve as witness, together with the Barangay Chair, yet they failed to do so. Neither did the police officers offer a justification or any explanation on the non-compliance of these requirements.
In People v. Umipang, 35 We held that the prosecution must show that the required presence of witnesses was earnestly sought. A sheer statement of their unavailability without a satisfactory explanation that serious attempts were made in looking for the other representatives is regarded as a flimsy excuse.
Clearly, these circumstances would show that the police officers failed to sufficiently observe the chain of custody rule. The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, while in police custody, were not properly preserved which would warrant a conviction for the offenses charged.
Further, it should be noted that the amount of shabu seized from Castro and Villasenior were at 0.04 gram and three sachets at 0.05 gram each. These amounts are considered as minuscule. 36 In People v. Saunar, 37 We held that when dealing with small amounts of dangerous drugs, the standards for compliance must be raised higher. Likewise, in People v. Holgado, 38 We ruled that:
Law enforcers should not trifle with the legal requirement to ensure integrity in the chain of custody of seized dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia. This is especially true when only a miniscule amount of dangerous drugs is alleged to have been taken from the accused. 39
In sum, for failing to strictly comply with the requirements laid down in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, this situation casts a reasonable doubt on the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti. Thus, on the ground of reasonable doubt, the conviction against Castro and Villasenior must be overturned.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated July 11, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09319 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellants Gilbert Castro y Yanga and Gerardo Villasenior y Perez are hereby ACQUITTED of the crimes charged on the ground of reasonable doubt. They are ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless they are confined for any other lawful cause. Let an entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ORDERED to: (a) cause the immediate release of Gilbert Castro y Yanga and Gerardo Villasenior y Perez, 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.(Inting, J., no part; Lazaro-Javier, J., additional member per Raffle dated December 9, 2020).
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr., with Associate Justices Franchito N. Diamante and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a Member of the Court), concurring; rollo, pp. 2-15.
2. Rendered by Presiding Judge Tita Marilyn Payoyo-Villordon; CA rollo, pp. 48-58.
3.Id. at 103-104.
4.Id. at 104-105.
5.Id. at 105.
6. Also referred to as Bernardo Rivera Roque in some parts of the rollo.
7. CA rollo, p. 105.
8.Id.
9.Id.
10.Id. at 105-106.
11.Id. at 49, 53 and 56.
12.Id. at 106.
13.Id.
14.Id. at 51.
15.Id. at 50.
16.Id. at 52.
17.Id. at 50.
18.Id. at 54.
19.Id. at 54-55.
20.Id. at 48-58.
21.Id. at 58.
22.Id. at 55-56.
23.Id. at 56.
24.Id.
25.Id. at 57.
26.Rollo, pp. 8-14.
27. 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 July 15, 2014.
28.People v. Que, 824 Phil. 882, 893 (2018).
29.People v. Angeles, G.R. No. 237355, November 21, 2018, citing People v. Mantalaba, 669 Phil. 461, 471-472 (2011).
30. Section 21 (1) of RA 10640 relaxed the procedure with respect to the persons required to be present during the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items. The law states "with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media." Thus, a representative from the media and a representative from the National Prosecution Service (Department of Justice) are now alternatives to each other.
31. G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
32. See also People v. Sipin, G.R. No. 224290, June 11, 2018.
33. G.R. No. 225210, August 7, 2019.
34.People v. Maganon, G.R. No. 234040, June 26, 2019; People v. Tomawis, 830 Phil. 385, 408-409 (2018); People v. Macud, 822 Phil. 1016, 1038-1039 (2017); People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749, 761 (2014).
35. 686 Phil. 1024 (2012).
36. See People v. Mamuyac, G.R. No. 234035, August 19, 2019.
37. 816 Phil. 482, 493-494 (2017), citing People v. Casacop, 755 Phil. 265, 286 (2015).
38. 741 Phil. 78 (2014).
39.Id. at 81.