People v. Climaco y Sapanghila

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 250429. April 26, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.GOMER CLIMACO y SAPANGHILA @ "GOMER CLIMACO/UNCLE" and DENNIS ANDAYA y PAGLINAWAN, accused-appellants.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 26, 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC

"G.R. No. 250429 (People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gomer Climaco y Sapanghila @ "Gomer Climaco/Uncle" and Dennis Andaya y Paglinawan, Accused-Appellants). — The instant appeal 1 assails the Decision 2 dated April 24, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10318 affirming the Consolidated Decision 3 dated October 27, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court of San Pedro City, Laguna, Branch 31 (RTC), where accused-appellants Gomer Climaco and Dennis Andaya were found guilty for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs defined and penalized under Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."

Facts of the Case

Version of the Prosecution

On June 4, 2016, Police Officer 2 Mark Anthony A. Manuel (PO2 Manuel) and Police Officer 1 Eugene B. Arce (PO1 Arce) were both on duty at the San Pedro City Police Station. On or about 8:20 a.m. of that day, a confidential informant approached them. The confidential informant advised the officers of illegal drug activities taking place in a house located at Villa Cristina Homes, Barangay San Antonio, San Pedro, Laguna owned by a certain "Uncle" later identified as accused Gomer Climaco (Climaco). Upon verification of the reported information, Police Inspector Lauro Moratillo (PInsp. Moratillo) formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation. PO2 Manuel was tasked to be the poseur-buyer, while PO1 Arce was designated as back-up, together with other police officers. 4

On or about 12:15 p.m. of the same day and after completing preparation of operation documents and the marked money for the buy-bust operation, the officers, together with the confidential informant, proceeded to the location of the reported illegal drug activity. PO2 Manuel and the confidential informant continued to head for the house of Climaco, while PO1 Arce as back-up officer, positioned himself five to six meters away from the house to be able to witness the operation. 5

It was about 12:40 p.m. when PO2 Manuel and the confidential informant arrived the house of Climaco. They saw a shirtless man standing by the gate of the house who looked like he was waiting for someone. The confidential informant approached the shirtless man, later identified as accused Dennis Andaya (Andaya). After a brief conversation with the confidential informant, Andaya then called out, "Uncle, may tao." 6 Immediately thereafter, Climaco came out from the house. Climaco, Andaya and the confidential informant, again had a brief conversation. Climaco and Andaya then motioned for PO2 Manuel to approach them. Andaya then asked PO2 Manuel, "Iiskor kaba, tol?" 7 which was followed by a question from Climaco, "Magkano ba ang iiskorin mo?" 8 PO2 Manuel replied that he will purchase P2,000.00 worth of illegal drugs. Andaya then told Climaco, "Uncle, meron pa tayo diyan na halagang two thousand sa bulsa mo." 9 Climaco then reached into his shorts-pocket and retrieved one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. Climaco handed the plastic sachet to PO2 Manuel in exchange for the two P1,000.00-bill marked money. Climaco then handed the money to Andaya. Thereafter, PO2 Manuel quickly took off his cap as a signal to his fellow officers of the completed transaction. PO1 Arce shortly arrived at the scene and took hold of Andaya. He introduced himself and PO2 Manuel as police officers. In the same instance, PO2 Manuel held unto Climaco. 10

After the arrest, PO2 Manuel proceeded to place the markings "MAAM-BB" on the plastic sachet he purchased from Climaco. PO2 Manuel then instructed Climaco to remove the contents of his shorts-pocket, which yielded two more pieces of heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance. As a result, PO2 Manuel also took custody of the two plastic sachets and placed on each sachet his markings "MAAM-1" and "MAAM-2," respectively. He then placed the two plastic sachets in the evidence bag together with the plastic sachet from the buy-bust operation. PO1 Arce, on the one hand, ordered Andaya to remove the contents of his pockets. The marked money consisting two pieces of P1,000.00-bills and two heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance were retrieved from the pockets. PO1 Arce then took custody of the two plastic sachets and placed on each sachet his markings "EBA-P1" and "EBA-P2". He placed the seized sachets in his own evidence bag. 11

As several onlookers were building up at the place of arrest, PO2 Manuel and PO1 Arce decided to bring both accused to the San Pedro Police Station for further processing. Upon arrival at the police station, PO1 Manuel called for an elected barangay official and media representative to witness the inventory-taking of the seized items. Thereafter, Kagawad Roberto Zamora and Rene Pulido arrived at the station. Inventory-taking of all the seized items ensued in the presence of both accused and the witnesses. Photographs 12 of such fact had also been taken. 13

The officers' team leader PInsp. Moratillo signed the requests for the laboratory exam of the seized items and of both accused. After which, PO2 Manuel and PO1 Arce brought Climaco, Andaya and all seized items to the Regional Crime Laboratory Office 4A in Canlubang, Calamba. Both accused were subjected to drug testing and the seized items were submitted for qualitative and quantitative examination. 14 In Chemistry Report No. D-1068-16 15 the seized items with the markings "MAAM-BB," "MAAM-1," and "MAAM-2" tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride weighing 1.06 grams, 4.42 grams and 24.16 grams, respectively. In Chemistry Report No. D-1069-16 16 the seized items with the markings "EBA-P1" and "EBA-P2" also tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride weighing 4.43 grams and 4.42 grams, respectively. Climaco and Andaya also tested positive 17 for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride in their body system.

Thereafter, both Climaco and Andaya were charged for conspiring in the illegal sale of dangerous drugs docketed as Criminal Case No. 16-11275-SPL. The information reads:

The undersigned accuses GOMER CLIMACO Y SAPANGHILA a.k.a. GOMER CLIMACO/UNCLE and DENNIS ANDAYA Y PAGLINAWAN of the crime of violation of Section 5 in relation to Section 26, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 committed as follows:

That on or about June 4, 2016, in the City of San Pedro, Province of Laguna, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and distribute Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, weighing One Point Zero Six (1.06) gram [sic], contained in a heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, in violation of the above-mentioned law.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 18

Climaco and Andaya were also separately charged for illegal possession of dangerous drugs docketed as Criminal Case No. 16-11276-SPL and Criminal Case No. 16-11277-SPL, respectively. The Informations are as follows:

Criminal Case No. 16-11276-SPL

The undersigned accuses GOMER CLIMACO y SAPANGHILA a.k.a. GOMER CLIMACO/UNCLE of the crime of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 committed as follows:

That on or about June 4, 2016 in the City of San Pedro, Province of Laguna, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously has in her [sic] possession, control and custody two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing 4.42 grams and 24.16 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug with a combined weight of Twenty Eight Point Fifty Eight (28.58) grams.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 19

Criminal Case No. 16-11277-SPL

The undersigned accuses DENNIS ANDAYA y PAGLINAWAN of the crime of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 committed as follows:

That on or about June 4, 2016 in the City of San Pedro, Province of Laguna, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously has in her [sic] possession, control and custody two (2) heat-seated transparent plastic sachets containing 4.43 grams and 4.42 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug with a combined weight of Eight Point Eighty Five (8.85) grams. CAIHTE

CONTRARY TO LAW. 20

Version of the Defense

Climaco and Andaya, on the other hand, denied that a buy-bust operation took place. 21 Both accused knew each other because they were previous neighbors. 22 On June 4, 2016, Andaya claimed that he went to Villa Cristina Subdivision after having been invited to attend a party. On his way to the party, he ran into Climaco by chance and briefly chatted about the move of Climaco in Villa Cristina Subdivision. 23 Both Climaco and Andaya claimed that the former sought a favor from the latter. Climaco asked Andaya to buy his prescribed medicines. He also asked Andaya to buy some viand and invited the latter for lunch. Andaya returned to Climaco's house after completing the latter's requested errands. 24 Just as he was to enter the house, he saw two men immediately alight from a vehicle. One of the men then pointed a gun at him and directed him to lie face down on the ground. Andaya was then handcuffed. The other man who alighted from the vehicle kicked open the door of Climaco's house. Andaya was pulled into the house and witnessed the other man ordering Climaco to lie face down on the ground. 25 Both accused claimed that the men were looking for a gun. 26 The men searched the first and second floors of Climaco's house which yielded no results. Climaco and Andaya were then brought to the police station. 27

At the police station, both accused claimed that they were made to stand beside a table and observed that the men took out from the drawer plastic sachets which they suspected to be methamphetamine hydrochloride or more commonly called shabu. Climaco and Andaya deny the accusations for illegal sale and possession of such dangerous drugs. 28 Climaco also claimed that the two men, who he later learned were PO2 Manuel and PO1 Arce, would help him if he does not oppose the inquest proceedings. 29

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

After trial proceedings, on October 27, 2017, the RTC rendered a Consolidated Decision 30 finding Climaco and Andaya guilty for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. 31 The RTC held that the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs are present. Moreover, the prosecution sufficiently established that Climaco and Andaya conspired in the illegal sale thereof. PO2 Manuel, who acted as poseur-buyer, positively identified both accused at the time of the transaction. The police officer gave a detailed account of the facts that Andaya instructed Climaco that the latter had dangerous drugs in the shorts-pocket; that Climaco made the exchange of the illegal drugs for the marked money given by the police officer; that Climaco handed the marked money to Andaya after the sale; and that the marked money was later recovered from Andaya after arrest. The RTC held that both accused had a concerted action which revealed a common purpose indicative of a conspiracy to sell illegal drugs to PO2 Manuel. 32

As to illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the RTC found that the prosecution established the criminal charges. The seizure of the subject illegal drugs was discovered as an incident to a lawful arrest. 33 Furthermore, the RTC gave credence to the testimonies of the police officers. Both Climaco and Andaya's denial pale in comparison to the positive identification of the police officers. The accused failed to present evidence to support their allegations or to show that the officers were motivated by an ill-will to impute the crimes charged against them. Their defense of frame-up is looked upon by the courts with disfavor as such can be conveniently concocted. 34

Anent compliance with the chain of custody, the RTC found that the prosecution established the integrity of the illegal drugs. The officers identified that the seized illegal drugs from the buy-bust operation and subsequent arrest are one and the same as those presented in court. Parties also stipulated that the forensic chemist duly received the seized illegal drugs, conducted the examination thereof, prepared the chemistry report and brought the same as evidence in court. The prosecution established that the illegal drugs were duly preserved in accordance with the rules of RA 9165 and that the same have not been tampered with. 35 The RTC sentenced Climaco and Andaya life imprisonment and fined both accused P500,000.00 for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. As for the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the RTC sentenced Climaco life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 because he possessed 28.58 grams of illegal drugs. Andaya was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for twenty (20) years and one (1) day and to pay a fine of P400,000.00 because he possessed 8.85 grams of illegal drugs. 36

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Both accused assailed the Decision of the RTC with the CA. On April 24, 2019, the CA rendered its Decision 37 affirming the conviction of Climaco and Andaya for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The CA agreed with the findings of the RTC that all elements of the crimes charged are present. Moreover, the chain of custody over the seized illegal drugs had not been broken. The officers immediately marked the seized items at the place of arrest, but moved the inventory-taking and photographing at the police station "sa kadahilanang nagsilabasan at nagsilapit na ang kanilang kapitbahay." 38 Albeit that initial procedures to the seizure were not all accomplished at the place of arrest, the CA held that the same is excused as circumstances show that the safety and security of the apprehending officers are threatened by an immediate or extreme danger. The CA also agreed with the RTC that parties stipulated on the succeeding links in the chain of custody, particularly, the transporting of seized items to the forensic laboratory, examination by the forensic chemist of the seized items, preparation of the chemistry reports which state that the seized items tested positive for illegal drugs and transporting of the same as evidence for presentation in court. As to the penalty, the CA made a simple modification to the sentence for illegal sale of dangerous drugs by adding that both accused are not eligible for parole. 39

Climaco and Andaya filed an appeal with this Court pursuant to Section 13, Rule 124 in relation to Section 3, Rule 56 of the Rules of Court. Parties filed their respective manifestations 40 in lieu of supplemental briefs with this Court.

Ruling of the Court

In illegal drugs cases, the drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. Apart from proving the presence of elements of the crimes charged, the prosecution is tasked to establish that the substance illegally sold and possessed by the accused is the same substance presented in court for the accused's conviction. 41 Thus, the rules on chain of custody is in place to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drugs have been preserved. 42

Section 21 of R.A. 9165 sets out the procedures on custody and disposition of confiscated or seized dangerous drugs. The procedures under the law is simplified as four links in the chain of custody which are: first, seizure of the illegal drugs or items from the accused to the apprehending officers; second, transfer of the seized illegal drugs or items from the apprehending officers to the investigating officers; third, transfer of the seized illegal drugs or items from the investigating officers to the forensic chemists; and fourth, transfer of the seized illegal drugs or items from the forensic chemists to the courts. 43 Each transfer from one link to another have specific procedures under the dangerous drugs law in order to ensure the integrity of the seized dangerous drugs. Non-compliance with them tarnishes the credibility of the corpus delicti. 44

Under the first link, Section 21 of R.A. 9165 states that the apprehending officers must conduct the marking, physical inventory and photographing of the seized items immediately after seizure and confiscation, and in the presence of the accused or the person from whom such items were confiscated or seized, or his/her representative or counsel. The law also requires that the foregoing be observed by three insulating witnesses. However, R.A. 10640, which took effect on August 7, 2014, amended certain provisions of R.A. 9165 which only requires at least two witnesses, namely: (1) an elected public official; and (2) a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media. As this case took place on June 4, 2016, the provisions of R.A. 10640, shall be applicable. aScITE

Here, We find non-compliance with the foregoing rule. From the facts, the police officers initially marked the seized items at the place of arrest. However, the two witnesses required under the law were not present. The necessity of having these witnesses at the time of apprehension and seizure would foreclose the pernicious practice of planting evidence or compromising the integrity of the same. 45 The subsequent presence of Kagawad Roberto Zamora and Rene Pulido at the police station for the inventory-taking and photographing of the seized items 46 did not cure the defect. In fact, PO2 Manuel admits that it was only upon arrival at the police station that he invited the witnesses. 47 To Our mind, the conduct of the inventory and photographing of the seized items before the accused and witnesses should have been done immediately after the team arrived at the police station. This was not the case as the officers had to wait for the witnesses' arrival before proceeding with the inventory-taking and photographing. 48 To reiterate, the seized items are from a buy-bust operation, one which is supposedly a well-planned activity. Thus, it is reasonably expected that invitation for the required witnesses had been prepared and sent prior the operation. Here, We find that the confidential informant advised the officers about 8 a.m., of the illegal drug activities, for which surveillance was conducted on the same day. 49 The police officers were able to organize the operation documents. During the intervening period between 8:20 a.m. and 12:40 p.m., 50 the officers could have already sent out invitations to the witnesses to be on standby for the expected operation. The prosecution failed to explain the police officers' belated invitation for the witnesses. The prosecution also neither alleged or proved the incidents surrounding custody over the seized items before the arrival of the witnesses at the police station. Thus, the witnesses could not have served their purpose.

As discussed, in illegal drugs cases, the drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. It is paramount that there be certainty in the integrity of the seized items taken from the accused as they make their way to an officer effecting the seizure, to an investigating officer, to a forensic chemist, and ultimately, to courts where they are introduced as evidence. 51 We note that while illegal drugs have been identified in open court by the seizing officers to possess their markings specifically, "MAAM-BB," "MAAM-1," and "MAAM-2" and "EBA-P1" and "EBA-P2," 52 the markings are incomplete pursuant to the 1999 Philippine National Police (PNP) Drug Enforcement Manual, which requires that the "the seizing officer (normally the poseur-buyer) and the evidence custodian must mark the evidence with their initials and also indicate the date, time and place the evidence was confiscated/seized." 53 Compliance with the rule on marking of seized illegal drugs is imperative as it serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings, to prevent switching, planting or contamination of evidence. 54 Here, without the necessary markings provided under the PNP Manual and the presence of the insulating witnesses at the time of the seizure of the illegal drugs, there is doubt whether the identity of the items presented in court are one and the same from those seized from the accused.

Moreover, We find more unjustified gaps in the chain of custody, specifically at the stage of receipt and handling of the seized drugs in the forensic laboratory. From the facts, the parties dispensed with the testimony of forensic chemist Camille Ocfemia after stipulating on the following:

1. that the witness is an expert witness being a forensic chemist;

2. that the witness is holding office at the Regional Crime Laboratory, Camp Vicente Lim, Canlubang, Calamba City;

3. that the witness was the one who examined the object evidence subject of these cases;

4. the existence, due execution and authenticity of the Request for Laboratory Examination (Re: Gomer Climaco) dated June 4, 2016 marked as Exhibit "F" and another Request for Laboratory Examination (Re: Dennis Andaya) as Exhibit "G";

5. the existence, due execution and authenticity of the Request for Drug Test (Re: Gomer Climaco) dated June 4, 2016 marked as Exhibit "H'' and another Request for Drug Test (Re: Dennis Andaya) as Exhibit "I";

6. the existence, due execution and authenticity of the Chemistry Report Number D-1068-16 (Re: Fomer Climaco) marked as Exhibit "J" and Chemistry Report Number D-1069-16 (Re: Dennis Andaya) as Exhibit "K";

7. the existence of the object evidence consisting of three (3) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance with markings "MAAM-BB" as Exhibit "J-1"; "MAAM-1" as Exhibit "J-2"; "MAAM-2" as Exhibit "J-3"; another two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance with markings "EBA-P1" as Exhibit "K-1" and "EBA-P2" marked as Exhibit "K-2";

8. the existence of CRIMDT-0991-16 marked as Exhibit "L" and CRIMDT-0992-16 as Exhibit "L-1";

9. that the witness was the one who personally received the request and the object evidence from the laboratory receiving clerk, SPO1 Jaime Ang;

10. that after examination, it was the witness who personally handed the object evidence to the evidence custodian of the crime laboratory; and

11. that she was the one who personally retrieved the evidence from the evidence custodian and personally brought it before this court. 55

We are cognizant of the common practice that the forensic chemist's testimony is often dispensed with during trial by reason of the parties' stipulation of certain facts. However, parties must stipulate that the forensic chemist would have testified that he/she had taken the precautionary steps required to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item, particularly: (1) that the forensic chemist received the seized article as marked, properly sealed, and intact; (2) that he resealed it after examination of the content; and (3) that he placed his own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered with pending trial. 56

From the foregoing, there is lack of the stipulations required for the proper and effective dispensation of the testimony of the forensic chemist. The stipulations are general in nature and only an admission as to the existence and authenticity of documentary evidence and the seized items. The stipulations do not cover the manner the specimen was handled before it came to the possession of the forensic chemist, during its examination and after it left her possession.

Furthermore, We observe from the Chain of Custody Forms 57 that police officers Manuel and Arce turned over the seized items to PO3 Randy Legaspi from the Crime Laboratory. However, from the stipulation of the parties, forensic chemist Ocfemia received the seized items from SPO1 Jaime Ang and not PO3 Randy Legaspi. 58 The prosecution did not present any allegation or document to prove this change of possession from one receiving officer to another. Thus, this unexplained movement, aside from the foregoing discussions, creates a gap in the chain of custody. The Court cannot ignore the lingering doubts as to the identity and integrity of the subject seized illegal drugs. Thus, the prosecution failed to discharge in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated April 24, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10318 affirming the Decision dated October 27, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court of San Pedro City, Laguna, Branch 31, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellants Gomer Climaco y Sapanghila @ "Gomer Climaco/Uncle" and Dennis Andaya y Paglinawan are ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt and are ORDERED to be IMMEDIATELY RELEASED unless they are being lawfully held for another cause; and to inform the Court of the date of his release, or reason for their continued confinement, within ten (10) days from receipt of notice. DETACa

SO ORDERED."Gaerlan, J., no part; Lazaro-Javier, J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated February 17, 2021.

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, p. 37.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Samuel H. Gaerlan (now a Member of this Court) and Pablito A. Perez; id. at 2-33.

3. Penned by Judge Sonia T. Yu-Casano; CA rollo, pp. 61-73.

4.Id. at 64.

5.Id. at 64; TSN dated May 30, 2017, p. 5.

6. CA rollo, p. 64.

7.Id.

8.Id.

9. Records, p. 14.

10. CA rollo, pp. 64-65.

11.Id. at 65.

12. Records, pp. 37-38.

13.Id. at 15.

14.Id.

15.Id. at 27.

16.Id. at 28.

17.Id. at 72, 74.

18.Id. at 1-2.

19.Id. at 3.

20.Id. at 5.

21. CA rollo, p. 66.

22. TSN dated October 3, 2017, p. 3; TSN dated October 18, 2017, p. 3.

23.Id. at 4-5.

24.Id. at 5-6; TSN dated October 18, 2017, pp. 5-6.

25.Id. at 6-8.

26.Id. at 8; TSN dated October 18, 2017, pp. 6-7.

27.Id. at 8-9; TSN dated October 18, 2017, pp. n

28.Id. at 10; TSN dated October 18, 2017, pp. 3-4 and 8-9.

29. TSN dated October 18, 2017, p. 11.

30.Supra note 3.

31. CA rollo, pp. 72-73.

32.Id. at 68-69.

33.Id. at 69.

34.Id. at 69-70.

35.Id. at 70-72.

36.Id. at 72-73.

37.Supra note 2.

38.Rollo, p. 29.

39.Id. at 22-32.

40.Id. at 45 and 56.

41.People v. Miranda, G.R. No. 218126, July 10, 2019.

42.People v. Sorin, 757 Phil. 360, 368-369 (2015).

43.People v. Que, 824 Phil. 882, 895 (2018), citing People v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134, 144-145 (2010).

44.Id., citing People v. Morales, 630 Phil. 215, 229 (2010).

45.People v. Globa, G.R. No. 241251, December 10, 2019.

46. Records, p. 37.

47.Id. at 5.

48.Rollo, p. 29.

49. Records, p. 13.

50.Id.

51.People v. Que, 824 Phil. 882, 909 (2018).

52. TSN dated February 28, 2017, pp. 5-8; records, pp. 14-15, 17.

53. Section B, clause (m), Philippine National Police Drug Enforcement Manual, PNPM-D-O-3-1-99 [NG], the precursor anti-illegal drug operations manual prior to the 2010 and 2014 AIDSOTF Manual; cited in People vs. Manabat, G.R. No. 242947, July 17, 2019.

54.People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 238339, August 7, 2019, citing People v. Saunar, 816 Phil. 482, 497 (2017), citing People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 232 (2015).

55. CA rollo, p. 63.

56.People v. Miranda, G.R. No. 218126, July 10, 2019.

57. Records, pp. 29-30.

58. CA rollo, p. 63.

n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.