THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 249545. September 29, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ROGER CURA, DANTON MEDINA, AND MARILOU PANGAN, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 29, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 249545 (People of the Philippines v. Roger Cura, Danton Medina, and Marilou Pangan). — This appeal 1 assails the Decision 2 dated May 21, 2019, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10224, which affirmed with modification the ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of the City of San Fernando, Pampanga, Branch 41, convicting: (1) accused-appellants Roger Cura (Cura), Danton Medina (Medina), and Marilou Pangan (Pangan) for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002"; (2) Medina and Pangan for illegal possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus or other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under Section 12 of R.A. No. 9165; (3) Pangan for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165; and (4) Medina for illegal possession of explosives under Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 9516. 3 The assailed CA decision acquitted Medina for illegal possession of ammunition. 4
Facts of the Case
Accused-appellants Cura, Medina, and Pangan were charged under five separate Informations, as follows:
Criminal Case No. 16747
That on or about the 18th day of February 2010 in the Municipality of Arayat, Province of Pampanga, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, ROGER CURA, TONGTONG MEDINA a.k.a. DANTON MEDINA, & MARILOU PANGAN @ MARY MEDINA, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another not having been lawfully authorized and/or permitted, did and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to PO1 Marlon Mendoza, acting as a poseur-buyer, two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing METHYLAMPHETAMINE Hydrocholoride (Shabu) weighing THREE HUNDRED ONE TEN THOUSANDTHS (0.0301 G.) and TWO HUNDRED SIXTY-FIVE TEN THOUSANDTHS (0.0265 G.) or a total weight of 0.0566 of a gram, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law.
Criminal Case No. 17371.
That on or about the 18th day of February 2010, at Brgy. Poblacion, Municipality of Arayat, Province of Pampanga, Philippines, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, TONGTONG MEDINA aka Danton Medina, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously has in his possession, direct control and custody two (2) hand grenades without first securing the necessary license or permit from proper authority.
Contrary to law.
Criminal Case No. 17372
That on or about the 18th day of February [2010], at Brgy. Poblacion, Municipality of Arayat, Province of Pampanga, Philippines within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, TONGTONG MEDINA aka Danton Medina, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously has in his possession, direct control and custody three (3) .45 caliber bullets and three (3) caliber .45 magazines loaded with seven (7) and four (4) .45 caliber bullets without first securing the necessary license or permit from proper authority.
Contrary to law.
Criminal Case No. 17373.
The undersigned Provincial Prosecutor and Assistance Provincial Prosecutor accuse TONGTONG MEDINA aka Danton Medina and MARY MEDINA of the crime of Violation of Sec. 12. Art. II, R.A. 9165, committed as follows:
That on or about the 18th day of February 2010, in the Municipality of Arayat, Province of Pampanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, without being authorized by law to possess, did and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in their possession and control one (1) piece strip Aluminum Foil with residue of Methamphetamine Hydrocloride (Shabu), fit for smoking, consuming or intended for the administration and introduction of dangerous drugs into the body.
Contrary to law.
Criminal Case No. 17374.
The undersigned Provincial Prosecutor and Assistant Provincial Prosecutor accused MARILOU PANGAN y de la Paz @ MARY MEDINA of the crime of Violation of Sec. 11, Art. II, R.A. 9165, committed as follows: That on or about the 18th day of February 2010, in the Municipality of Arayat, Province of Pampanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law to possess, did then and there willfully and unlawfully have in his (sic) possession, control and custody two (2) pieces heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing Methamphetamine Hydrocholoride (Shabu) weighing Two Hundred Thirteen Ten Thousandth (.0213) of a gram and Two Hundred Twenty Ten Thousandth (.0220) of a gram or a total weight of Four Hundred Thirty Three Ten Thousandth (0.433) of a gram, dangerous drugs.
Contrary to law. 5
On June 2, 2010, Cura was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. Medina and Pangan were arraigned on May 2, 2012 and on June 4, 2013, respectively. They both pleaded not guilty. All the five Informations were consolidated and thereafter, trial ensued. 6
The version of the prosecution are as follows:
On February 18, 2010, the Office of the Provincial Special Operations Group of San Fernando, Pampanga received information that one Tongtong Medina (later identified as accused-appellant Medina) was rampantly selling shabu in Barangay Poblacion, Arayat, Pampanga. After validating the said information, P/Supt. Moises Villaceran organized a buy-bust team composed of PO1 Marlon Mendoza (PO1 Mendoza) as the poseur-buyer, with PO2 Crispin Tecson (PO2 Tecson), PO3 Erickson Mendoza (PO3 Mendoza), PO3 Donald Roque (PO3 Roque), and PO1 Jayson Simon (PO1 Simon) as back up, to entrap Medina. PO1 Mendoza received two pieces of marked P500.00 bills as buy-bust money to purchase the illegal drugs. The team likewise coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency before proceeding with the operation. 7
At around 11:30 a.m., the buy-bust team arrived in Barangay Poblacion. PO1 Mendoza and the civilian informant proceeded to Medina's house. When they reached the target house, Cura approached them. Thereafter, Cura accompanied them to the house of Medina and introduced them to Medina and Pangan who were at the other side of the gate of the house. PO1 Mendoza claimed that Medina was wearing a camouflage jacket and Pangan was wearing a dress at that time. 8
After the introductions, PO1 Mendoza signalled his intention to buy shabu worth P1,000.00 by handing the two marked P500.00 bills to Cura, who passed the money to Medina, who in turn gave the same to Pangan. Pangan placed the marked money in her coin purse and took out two plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance. Pangan then gave the sachets to Medina, who passed it to Cura, who eventually handed the same to PO1 Mendoza. Thereafter, PO1 Mendoza executed the pre-arranged signal to show that the sale is consummated. PO1 Mendoza introduced himself as a police officer and immediately apprehended Cura. However, since Medina and Pangan were at the other side of the gate, they quickly closed the gate and ran inside their house. PO3 Roque and PO1 Simon chased Medina and Pangan. When the two police officers reached the second floor of the house, they saw a room with an open window which Medina and Pangan used to escape. When the police ran after the two accused-appellants, Medina allegedly shot at them. 9
Upon inspection of the roof where the police officers last saw Medina and Pangan running to evade arrest, the police officers recovered Medina's camouflage jacket, where they found two hand grenades and three .45 caliber magazines and live ammunitions. The police likewise found Pangan's coin purse containing the marked P500.00 bills and two other plastic sachets of shabu. Upon further search of the house, the police found two other plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance, one aluminum foil strip with shabu residue, one medium-sized plastic sachet with suspected marijuana seeds and empty plastic sachets. The police officers also arrested Ryan Medina (Ryan), Patrick Gonzales (Gonzales), and Rafel Magat (Magat), who were inside Medina's house at the time of the buy-bust operation. 10
The police officers alleged that since the incident already caused commotion, they decided to go back to their office for the conduct of the inventory and disposition of the evidence gathered from the scene. Upon arrival at the police station, PO1 Mendoza, PO3 Roque, and PO1 Simon separately marked the seized items and listed them in the inventory of seized items. A representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and a media personality witnessed the marking of the seized items. Thereafter, the police prepared a Memorandum, requesting the Crime Laboratory to examine the chemical composition of the seized items. The said Memorandum was signed by their Assistant Company Commander Police Chief Inspector Lea Rosa Peña (PCI Peña). The police officers then brought their request and seized items to the Regional Crime Laboratory Office in Camp Olivas, San Fernando City, Pampanga. Police Chief Inspector Angel C. Timario (PCI Timario), a Forensic Chemist assigned in the Regional Crime Laboratory Office, received the Memorandum and the seized items. Based on the Chemistry Report of PCI Timario, the white crystalline substances in the plastic sachets are positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. 11
The police officers requested the Explosives and Management Division and the Firearms Licensing Division of the Firearms and Explosives Office to verify whether Medina has permit to possess any firearms or explosives. Based on the Certifications of the said Office, Medina has not been issued any permit or license to possess any kind of explosives and/or firearms. 12
On the other hand, accused-appellants denied the charges filed against them. According to Cura, he used to be a tricycle driver. On February 18, 2010, while in the tricycle terminal in Barangay Poblacion, Arayat, Pampanga, waiting for passengers, PO1 Mendoza approached him to ask for the location of Medina's house. He then accompanied PO1 Mendoza to Medina's residence. While they were in front of Medina's house, about ten police officers suddenly arrived at the scene and entered the house. After a while, he heard gunshots coming from the roof. Thereafter, PO1 Roque arrested him and forced him to board the Mitsubishi Adventure. Cura narrated that he saw Medina and Pangan ran away from the police officers. However, he denied being a drug broker for Medina and had no participation in any transaction between PO1 Mendoza and Medina. 13
During his cross-examination, Cura admitted that he had known Medina to be a drug dealer for a long time. He likewise revealed that the police officers who arrested him asked for P200,000.00 for his release. However, as he could not produce the same, the police officers filed a case against him. He alleged that Ryan, Gonzales, and Magat were released because they paid the amount extorted from them. 14
Medina and Pangan likewise denied the accusations filed against them. Medina claimed that from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. of February 18, 2010, he was at Barangay Guemasan, Arayat, Pampanga, painting the roof of his aunt's house. Medina alleged that his aunt was with him the whole time. After painting the roof, his uncle fetched him and together, they went home to the house of Pangan's parents in Mangga, Cacutud, Arayat, Pampanga. Medina and Pangan claimed that they have been staying in Mangga, Cacutud at that time because the electricity in their house in Barangay Poblacion was disconnected. 15
Pangan, on the other hand, claimed that she was heavily pregnant at the time the incident occurred and in fact gave birth to her and Medina's first daughter. At around 1:00 p.m. of February 18, 2010, Pangan went to the market to exercise and gently walk as instructed by her doctor. She returned to her father's house at 3:00 p.m. At around 5:00 p.m., Pangan's water bag broke so her father brought her to the clinic. Pangan allegedly gave birth to her first child with Medina at 6:00 p.m. Medina and Pangan presented the Certificate of Live Birth of their daughter to prove their assertions. The Certificate of Live Birth was however registered only after five months or on July 13, 2010. 16
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On August 25, 2017, the RTC rendered its Joint Decision 17 convicting accused-appellants, beyond reasonable doubt, for all the crimes charged under the five Informations filed against them. 18
The RTC gave credence to the version of the prosecution. The RTC held that accused-appellants merely denied the charges filed against them. 19 The RTC noted that Medina and Pangan concocted facts which are hard to believe. The RTC also doubted Pangan's claim that she gave birth on January 18, 2010 because the Certificate of Live Birth was registered only after five months from the supposed birth of the child. The defense was not even able to present somebody from the clinic who can corroborate their story. 20
The RTC stressed that between the positive assertions of the prosecution witnesses and the negative averments of accused-appellants, the former deserves more credence and entitled to greater evidentiary weight. 21 Hence, the RTC found that all the elements for violation of Sections 5, 11, and 12 of R.A. No. 9165 are present in this case. 22
The RTC likewise stated that considering that the warrantless arrest of accused-appellants in a buy-bust operation is valid, the confiscation of grenades, ammunitions, marked money, and sachets of shabu, used in the commission of the crime, should likewise be considered valid. Hence, the grenade and ammunitions recovered from the jacket of Medina, and the other sachets of shabu recovered from the coin purse of Pangan formed part of the buy-bust operation. 23
Lastly, the RTC found that Medina did not have the necessary license to possess the explosives and ammunitions recovered from his jacket which he left while evading arrest. 24
Aggrieved, accused-appellants appealed the case to the CA.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
On May 21, 2019, the CA rendered its Decision 25 affirming with modification the ruling of the RTC.
The CA agreed with the RTC that all the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs are present in this case. According to the CA, the prosecution amply proved the proper chain of custody and while the police officers failed to strictly adhere to the provisions of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, the deviation was justified, and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items was preserved. 26
The CA further held that the RTC correctly convicted Medina and Pangan of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia which were recovered in their house after they evaded arrest. 27
As to the illegal possession of ammunitions and explosives, the CA found that the ammunitions and explosives were recovered from the jacket used by Medina during the buy-bust. However, Medina did not have the necessary license to possess the said ammunitions and explosives. Despite this, the CA only affirmed Medina's conviction of illegal possession of explosives, and he was acquitted of illegal possession of ammunitions because according to the CA, under R.A. No. 8294, there can be no separate offense of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition if there is another crime committed such as illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. 28
Still aggrieved, accused-appellants appealed their case to the Court. The Court ordered the parties to file their respective Supplemental Briefs. In a Manifestation 29 dated November 17, 2020, accused-appellants adopted their Appellants' Brief 30 filed before the CA as their Supplemental Brief. Similarly, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) manifested 31 that they are adopting their Appellee's Brief 32 as their Supplemental Brief.
In their Brief, accused-appellants questioned the RTC and CA for giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Accused-appellants claimed that no buy-bust operation actually occurred and that the seized drugs were planted. According to accused-appellants, it is contrary to human experience that Pangan, who was heavily pregnant at that time, can climb the roof and ran from the police officers to evade arrest. The accused-appellants likewise emphasized the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the police officers who cannot even remember the name of their police asset and the number of vehicles used in the alleged buy-bust. Thus, accused-appellants argued that there was no valid warrantless arrest conducted against them. 33 Accused-appellants likewise stressed that the prosecution failed to properly observe the chain of custody rule. Accused-appellants noted that the police officers failed to immediately mark and make an inventory of the seized items at the place where they were seized. Instead, the police officers marked the same at the police station. The accused-appellants also raised the absence of an elected public official as a required witness to the marking and inventory. 34 Medina further questioned his conviction for illegal possession of explosives and illegal possession of drug paraphernalia as well as Pangan's conviction of illegal possession of shabu and other drug paraphernalia. According to Medina and Pangan, circumstantial evidence is not enough to prove that the jacket where the explosives were recovered and the coin purse where the other shabu was discovered, belonged to Medina and Pangan, respectively. 35
The OSG on the other hand concurred with the findings of the RTC and CA that all the elements of the crimes were duly proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. 36
Ruling of the Court
The appeal is meritorious.
Accused-appellants in these consolidated cases, either jointly or independently, were charged, among others, with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, as well as illegal possession of drug paraphernalia penalized under Sections 5, 11, and 12 of R.A. No. 9165, respectively.
Case law states that in every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be proven with moral certainty: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. Meanwhile, in instances wherein an accused is charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish the necessary elements thereof, to wit: (a) the accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited drug; (b) such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. And finally, to properly secure the conviction of an accused charged with illegal possession of drug paraphernalia, the prosecution must show: (a) 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 (b) such possession is not authorized by law. 37
In all these instances, conviction cannot be sustained if there is a persistent doubt on the identity of the seized drug and drug paraphernalia. Apart from showing that the elements of illegal sale or possession of dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia are present, the fact that the substance illegally possessed and sold are the same substance offered in court as exhibits must likewise be established with the same degree of certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty verdict. 38 Thus, in order to obviate any unnecessary doubts on the identity of the dangerous drugs and/or drug paraphernalia, the prosecution must be able to account for each link of the chain from the moment of seizure up to presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti. 39
In relation to this, there must be proper observance of the provisions of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. Here, since the alleged buy-bust operation was conducted prior to the amendment of R.A. No. 9165, the apprehending team is mandated, immediately after seizure and confiscation, to conduct a physical inventory and to photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (1) a representative from the media; (2) a representative from the DOJ; and (3) any elected public official. 40
In these consolidated cases, the seized drugs and drug paraphernalia were not immediately marked and photographed. Instead, the police officers brought the seized items to their police station. Further, the marking and inventory were witnessed only by a representative of the DOJ and a media personality. There was no elected public official who witnessed the same. Section 21 also requires that the marking and inventory should be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel. Here, since accused-appellants allegedly evaded arrest, the police officers should have conducted the marking and inventory in the presence of the counsel or representative of accused-appellants.
The Court explained in a number of cases that the presence of the witnesses from the DOJ, media, and from public elective office is necessary to protect against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug. Without the insulating presence of these witnesses, the evils of switching, planting or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted will negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the subject drug that was evidence of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affect the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused. 41 The Court also stated that the presence of the three witnesses must be secured not only during the inventory but more importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest. 42
On this score alone, the conviction of accused-appellants for violation of the provisions of R.A. No. 9165 is not proper.
The Court emphasized in People v. Que43 the precise and mandatory language of the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, such that:
Compliance with Section 21's chain of custody requirements ensures the integrity of the seized items. Non-compliance with them tarnishes the credibility of the corpus delicti around which prosecutions under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act revolve. Consequently, they also tarnish the very claim that an offense against the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act was committed. 44
Citing People v. Belocura, 45Que stressed that the failure to comply with the chain of custody rule raises grave doubt about any search being actually conducted and warrants the suspicion that the prohibited drugs were planted evidence. 46
Following this line of jurisprudence, the glaring non-compliance with the provisions of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 not only renders the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items to be highly compromised; it also makes highly doubtful the conduct of the buy-bust operation.
In addition to this grave omission, it is noticeable that in the police officers' version of the facts, they stated that PO1 Mendoza, as the poseur-buyer, handed the two marked P500.00 bills to Cura, who passed the money to Medina, who in turn gave the same to Pangan. Thereafter, Pangan allegedly placed the marked money in her coin purse and took out two plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance. Pangan then gave the sachets to Medina, who passed it to Cura, who eventually handed the same to PO1 Mendoza. In an ordinary sale, whether in a buy-bust or normal sale of goods, he who buys would naturally hand over the payment to the seller directly. Likewise, he who sells would typically hand over the goods directly to the buyer. However, the passing of possession of the dangerous drugs and the marked money between and among the accused-appellants in this case has no other purpose but to ensure that all of them would be included in the charges filed. Thus, all the more casting doubt on the validity of the buy-bust operation.
Section 2, Article III 47 of the 1987 Constitution requires that a judicial warrant should be first procured before searches and seizures may be carried out; otherwise, any evidence obtained from unreasonable searches and seizure shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. 48 However, there are recognized exceptions to the need for a warrant before a search may be effected. One of which is search incidental to a lawful arrest. 49 A lawful arrest may be done with or without a warrant. Section 5 of Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure enumerates the instances where a warrantless arrest may be valid, such as, when the accused is caught in flagrante delicto. 50
Here, since the conduct of the buy-bust operation, a form of an in flagrante arrest sanctioned by the Rules of Criminal Procedure, 51 is highly doubtful and cannot be established, there is no clear basis for the subsequent search and seizure done upon accused-appellants purporting to be an incident to a lawful warrantless arrest. Resultantly, all the items allegedly seized from accused-appellants, including the explosives, are inadmissible in evidence for being fruits of the poisonous trees.
Further, the Court observes that the police officers allegedly recovered ammunitions and two hand grenades from the jacket of Medina. He left the house when he and Pangan eluded arrest. Even assuming that he was preparing for any eventuality while committing an illegal act such as selling drugs, no person would ordinarily carry two hand grenades in his jacket while in the vicinity of his own house. Grenade is a dangerous and explosive weapon which can seriously injure and even kill a person carrying it casually. It would have been different if the police recovered a gun from the jacket of Medina because a person may ordinarily carry a gun to defend himself especially if he knows that he is dealing with illegal substances. This observation, together with all the foregoing irregularities committed by the police officers in the arrest and subsequent search and seizure of accused-appellants, fortifies serious doubt about the conduct of the buy-bust operation.
All told, the Court cannot sustain the ruling of the CA upholding the conviction of accused-appellants for violation of R.A. No. 9165 and Presidential Decree No. 1866 as amended by R.A. No. 9516.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated May 21, 2019, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10224, convicting: (1) Roger Cura, Danton Medina, and Marilou Pangan for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165; (2) Danton Medina, and Marilou Pangan for illegal possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus or other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under Section 12 of Republic Act No. 9165; (3) Marilou Pangan for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165; and (4) Danton Medina for illegal possession of explosives under Presidential Decree No. 1866 as amended by Republic Act No. 9516, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, Roger Cura, Danton Medina, and Marilou Pangan are ACQUITTED for violation of the provisions of Republic Act No. 9165 and of Presidential Decree No. 1866 as amended by Republic Act No. 9516. Roger Cura, Danton Medina, and Marilou Pangan are ORDERED to be IMMEDIATELY RELEASED, unless they are being lawfully held in custody for any other reason.
SO ORDERED." (Leonen, on official leave.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 20.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes; id. at 3-19.
3. An Act Further Amending the Provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1866. As Amended, Entitled Codifying the Laws on Illegal/Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or Disposition of Firearms, Ammunition or Explosives or Instrument Used in the Manufacture of Firearms, Ammunition or Explosives, and Imposing Stiffer Penalties for Certain Violations Thereof, and for Other Relevant Purposes.
4.Id. at 18.
5.Id. at 4-6.
6.Id. at 6.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 6-7.
9.Id. at 7.
10.Id. at 7.
11.Id. at 7-8.
12.Id. at 8.
13.Id. at 9.
14.Id.
15.Id.
16.Id. at 9-10.
17. CA rollo, pp. 87-199.
18.Id. at 197-199.
19.Id. at 186.
20.Id. at 188.
21.Id. at 189.
22.Id.
23.Id. at 192.
24.Id. at 193.
25.Supra note 2.
26.Rollo, p. 15.
27.Id. at 16.
28.Id. at 18.
29.Id. at 46-48.
30. CA rollo, pp. 60-84.
31.Rollo, pp. 53-54.
32. CA rollo, pp. 199-215.
33.Id. at 74.
34.Id. at 74-75.
35.Id. at 80-81.
36.Id. at 208.
37.People v. Lumaya, 827 Phil. 473, 484 (2018).
38.People v. Dela Cruz, 744 Phil. 816, 830 (2014).
39.People v. Viterbo, 739 Phil. 593 (2014).
40. Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165.
41.People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749, 764 (2014).
42.People v. Tomawis, 830 Phil. 385, 409 (2018).
43. 324 Phil. 882 (2018).
44.Id. at 896.
45. 693 Phil. 476 (2012).
46.Id. at 495.
47. Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
48. Section 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law. (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
49.Veridiano v. People of the Philippines, 634 Phil. 437, 447 (2010).
50. Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense:
xxx xxx xxx
51.People v. Roa, 634 Phil. 437, 447 (2010).