THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 231885. September 23, 2020.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ERNESTO DEL ROSARIO y LAGITAW A.K.A. "DON", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated September 23, 2020, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 231885 — (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee v. ERNESTO DEL ROSARIO y LAGITAW a.k.a. "DON DON," accused-appellant). — This resolves an appeal from the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision 1 dated August 16, 2016 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07010, which affirmed with modification the Decision 2 dated August 20, 2014 rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of La Trinidad, Benguet, Branch 62 in Criminal Case No. 12-CR-8946, finding Ernesto del Rosario y Lagitaw (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as "The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
The Antecedents
Accused-appellant was charged, in two separate Informations, with violation of Section 15 (illegal use of dangerous drugs) and Section 5 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs), Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the accusatory portions of which read:
Criminal Case No. 12-CR-8945
That on or about the 2nd day of June, 2012, at Km. 4, Municipality of La Trinidad, Province of Benguet, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly use and take methamphetamine hydrochloride, also known as "shabu," a dangerous drug in violation of the said law. 3 (Emphasis in the original)
Criminal Case No. 12-CR-8946
That on or about the 2nd day of June 2012, at Km. 4, Municipality of La Trinidad, Province of Benguet, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly possess, control, sell and deliver 0.05 grams [sic] of methamphetamine hydrochloride also known as 'shabu,' a dangerous drug, to SPOIII RAYMOND B. TACIO, a member of the Philippine National Police and presently assigned with the Special Operations Unit-Regional Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Group (SOU-RAIDSOTG), PRO-COR, in violation of the said law. 4 (Emphasis in the original)
When arraigned, accused-appellant pleaded "not guilty" to the crimes charged. After a joint pre-trial conference, a consolidated trial on the merits ensued. 5
The prosecution's version of the incident, as summarized by the CA, is as follows:
Evidence for the prosecution disclosed that on June 1, 2012, at around 6:30 p.m., SPO3 Raymond B. Tacio of the Special Operating Unit-Regional Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Group (SOU-RAIDSOTG) at Camp Bado Dangwa, La Trinidad, Benguet received a report from a confidential informant ("CI") about alleged illegal drugs activity by a certain "Don Don," who was later identified as accused-appellant Ernesto del Rosario. The CI narrated that accused-appellant has readily available "stuff" and asked him to look for buyers in exchange for a commission. Upon conducting a record check, SPO3 Tacio ascertained that accused-appellant's name was on the drug's [sic] watch list and had been under surveillance based on earlier reports of concerned citizens that he was engaged in the distribution and sale of shabu.
SPO3 Tacio relayed the report to P/Supt. Adonis Guzman, Chief of SOU-RAIDSOTG, who instructed SPO4 Nicholas Luna to form a team to conduct a possible buy-bust operation. For this purpose, a five-man team was formed composed of SPO4 Luna, as team leader, SPO3 Tacio, as poseur-buyer and evidence custodian, PO3 Christian Boado, as photographer, and PO1 Francis Facunla and PO1 Christopher Adi as back-up operatives.
About 10:30 p.m., the team, together with the CI, proceeded to the target area. Thereat, SPO3 Tacio and the CI waited for the accused-appellant in front of Padi's Point. Around 12:30 a.m., of June 2, 2012, a male person, which resembled the description of the accused-appellant, approached and talked to the CI. The CI introduced SPO3 Tacio as his friend who wanted to buy shabu. Accused-appellant asked SPO3 Tacio how much he would buy, and in response, SPO3 Tacio answered that he would buy P2,000.00 worth and showed accused-appellant the money. Thus, accused-appellant asked SPO3 Tacio and the CI to go with him to Km. 4 in La Trinidad, Benguet where accused-appellant would get the item. SPO3 Tacio pretended that he needed to urinate, whereupon he called SPO4 Luna to inform the team of developments.
SPO3 Tacio, the CI, and the accused-appellant boarded a taxi, and the team secretly followed them. Upon reaching Km. 4, the three (3) alighted at a waiting shed near Seto's Woodworks. Accused-appellant left SPO3 Tacio and the CI to get an item elsewhere.
When the accused-appellant came back at around 1:20 a.m., he asked the money from SPO3 Tacio, who readily complied. Accused-appellant handed over a folded piece of paper, which enclosed a transparent heat-sealed plastic sachet containing what appeared to be white crystalline substance, suspected to be shabu. SPO3 Tacio grabbed the accused-appellant's hand, and with the team's pre-arranged signal that the transaction has been consummated, the rest of the team rushed towards them. PO3 Boado photographed the pieces of evidence taken from the accused-appellant, while PO1 Adi informed accused-appellant of the nature of his arrest and his constitutional rights.
SPO3 Tacio immediately marked the pieces of evidence from accused-appellant as follows: (a) the item sold as Exhibit A; (b) the piece of paper used to wrap the item sold as Exhibit B; (c) the two One thousand peso bills as Exhibit C; (d) the cellphone confiscated from the accused-appellant as Exhibit D. Likewise, SPO3 Tacio indicated on each of the seized items his initials "RBT," affixed his signature and the date "02 JUNE 2012" thereon. Thereafter, the accused-appellant and the seized items were brought to La Trinidad Police Station, where the Inventory Form, Booking Sheet and Arrest Report of accused-appellant were prepared. Thereat, an inventory was conducted, which was witnessed by Barangay Kagawad Billy M. Bilango, Provincial Prosecutor William Bacoling, and Jordan Tablac of Bombo Radio. SPO3 Tacio likewise prepared the request for Qualitative Examination and the Request for Drug Test Examination. SPO3 Tacio personally brought the subject specimen to the crime laboratory for examination.
P/S Insp. Rowena F. Canlas of the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory at Cordillera received the subject specimen. She then conducted the necessary tests which yielded a positive result for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. Before turning the item to the evidence custodian, she placed the subject drug inside a brown envelope, sealed it with a masking tape, affixed her signature on the face thereof and marked it with "D-77-2012, June 2, 2012, RFC." 6
On the other hand, the version of the defense, as likewise summarized by the CA, is as follows:
For the defense, accused-appellant alleged that he was a freelance masseur therapist. According to him, he usually rendered his services in the evening at the client's place or in a hotel.
In the early morning of June 2, 2012, between 1:00-2:00 a.m., he was at the Rizal Park near Padi's Point, waiting for his friend Erwin, who was also a masseur therapist, to get his tip for recommending a client. No one was around, except for a male person standing and fiddling with his cellphone, later identified as SPO3 Tacio. Accused-appellant received a text message from Erwin who asked where the accused was and he replied that he was in front of Padi's Point. SPO3 Tacio approached accused-appellant and asked if he is Don Don, and the accused responded positively. Suddenly, SPO3 Tacio clutched the accused in front of his shirt and shouted, "Ito si Don Don, ito si Don Don," Then, five (5) other men came out of nowhere and surrounded the accused. The group of men informed the accused that they are policemen and they had arrested Erwin.
The police boarded the accused in a green Besta van and asked him where he resides. Hoping that he would get to talk to his family, the accused told the police that he lives in Km. 4 near Seto's Woodworks. Thereat, they ordered him to sit in the nearby waiting shed, where one police officer, whom he later learned as PO3 Boado, took photographs. SPO3 Tacio, laid a white coupon bond on the ground, then unwrapped a folded piece of paper, revealing one (1) small plastic sachet containing a powder-like substance. He likewise took out two (2) P1,000 peso bills and accused-appellant's cellphone. SPO3 Tacio placed all these items on top of the coupon bond and posed for the camera as if writing something on these items. Another officer came near the accused and read something to him.
After the rituals, the police officers brought the accused at Camp Dangwa, where they all had breakfast. Thereat, the accused saw Erwin but was not able to talk to him. At around 5:00 a.m., the accused was brought to Benguet General Hospital and then to La Trinidad Police Station, where his photograph was taken and was later detained.
At around 10:00 a.m., the accused was brought out of the detention cell and was taken to an office, where he saw a desk with items laid on top of it and persons signing a document. Thereafter, PO3 Boado and PO1 Christopher Adi brought him back to Camp Dangwa where the accused was subjected to a drug test. At around 4:00 p.m., he was finally allowed to call his mother and live-in partner. 7
On August 20, 2014, the RTC rendered a Decision, 8 the decretal portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing consideration, the accused Ernesto del Rosario y Lagitaw is hereby acquitted in Criminal Case No. 12-CR-8945, for use of dangerous drugs.
In Criminal Case No. 12-CR-8946, the accused is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of unauthorized sale and delivery of methamphetamine hydrochloride, locally known as "shabu," a dangerous drug.
The accused is hereby imposed the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000).
SO ORDERED. 9
The RTC exonerated accused-appellant from the charge of illegal use of dangerous drugs under Section 15, Article II of R.A. 9165 for lack of evidence. 10 Meanwhile, in convicting accused-appellant for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of the same law, the RTC found the testimonies of the police officers more credible and convincing than that of accused-appellant. It held that the testimonies of the police who participated in the buy-bust operation corroborated each other on material points and were supported by the physical or object evidence presented by the prosecution vis-a-vis the unsubstantiated allegation of frame-up by accused-appellant. 11
Thus, accused-appellant appealed the RTC Decision to the CA, but only with respect to Criminal Case No. 12-CR-8946 relating to his conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs. In its August 16, 2016 Decision, 12 the CA ruled that the prosecution successfully proved all the elements of the illegal sale of shabu by accused-appellant. 13 It joined the RTC in giving credence to the testimonies of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation against accused-appellant, buttressed by the presumption that they have regularly performed their duties. 14 Moreover, it declared that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved and the chain of custody was duly established. 15 The fallo of the Decision states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the APPEAL is hereby DISMISSED. Accordingly, the Decision on August 20, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court, La Trinidad, Benguet, Branch 62 in Criminal Case No. 12-CR-8946, insofar as the conviction of Ernesto del Rosario for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and the penalty of life imprisonment is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION as to the fine which is hereby reduced to P500,000.00.
SO ORDERED. 16 (Emphasis in the original)
Insisting on his innocence, accused-appellant filed a notice of appeal. 17 Giving due course to his appeal, the CA, per Resolution 18 dated September 27, 2016, elevated the records of the case to this Court.
In its Resolution 19 dated July 19, 2017, the Court noted the case records forwarded by the CA and informed the parties that they may file their respective supplemental briefs within 30 days from notice.
Both accused-appellant 20 and the People, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), 21 manifested that they will no longer file supplemental briefs. These were noted by the Court in its Resolution 22 dated January 17, 2018.
In his brief 23 before the CA, accused-appellant argues that his indictment for illegal sale of dangerous drugs has no leg to stand on. He claims that the supposed buy-bust operation conducted by the police operatives was marred by irregularities and the testimonies of the members of the buy-bust team were replete with glaring inconsistencies, thereby casting serious doubt whether the same actually took place. 24
On the other hand, the OSG, in its brief 25 for the People, maintains that the prosecution was able to prove the existence of all the essential elements of the illegal sale of shabu. 26 Likewise, it asserts that the circumstances mentioned by accused-appellant refer to insignificant details that reinforce rather than detract from the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. 27 Therefore, it posits that the factual findings of the trial court on the credibility of the witnesses should not be disturbed and must be accorded great weight, absent any showing that certain facts of relevance and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied, because it had the opportunity to observe the demeanor and conduct of the witnesses while they were testifying on the witness stand. 28
Our Ruling
At the outset, it must be stressed that an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review and, thus, it is the duty of the reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned. "The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law." 29
Apropos thereto, the Court finds the appeal meritorious.
For a successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be satisfied: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money consummate the illegal transaction. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited drug, the corpus delicti, as evidence. 30
In all prosecutions for violations of R.A. No. 9165, the corpus delicti is the dangerous drug itself, the existence of which is essential to a judgment of conviction. 31 It is of utmost importance that the integrity and identity of the seized drug must be shown to have been duly preserved. 32 This requirement necessarily arises from the illegal drug's unique characteristic that renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration, or substitution either by accident or otherwise. 33 Thus, to remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the accused; otherwise, the prosecution for possession or sale fails. 34
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment employed by peace officers to apprehend prohibited drug law violators in the act of committing a drug-related offense. Because of the built-in danger for abuse that a buy-bust operation carries, it is governed by specific procedures on the seizure and custody of drugs, separately from the general law procedures geared to ensure that the rights of people under criminal investigation and of the accused facing a criminal charge are safeguarded. 35 This applies especially in cases when only a miniscule amount of dangerous drugs is alleged to have been taken from the accused. In People v. Holgado, 36 where the shabu supposedly seized from the accused amounted to just 0.05 gram, as in this case, the Court underscores the need for more exacting compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.
In this regard, Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the applicable law at the time of the commission of the alleged crime, lays down the procedure to be observed by the apprehending officers to properly preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the illegal drugs seized, viz.:
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 officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory 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, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. x x x 37
The aforequoted provision is expounded in Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165, which states:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory 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, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official 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, further that non-compliance with 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 of and custody over said items.
While R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR are silent as to when and where the "marking" of the seized items in warrantless seizures should be done, this matter had already been settled by the Court in People v. Sanchez, declaring that: "[c]onsistency with the "chain of custody" rule requires that the "marking" of the seized items — to truly ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence — should be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator (2) immediately upon confiscation." 38
In view thereof, the basic requirement on the proper disposition of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered dangerous drugs enjoins the members of the apprehending team having initial custody and control of the illicit drugs to conduct the (1) marking; (2) inventory; and (3) photograph taking of the seized illegal drugs immediately after seizure in the presence of: (a) the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel; (b) a representative from the media; (c) a representative from the DOJ; and (d) any elected public official.
The requirement of having an elected public official and representatives from the media and the DOJ to personally witness the marking, inventory, and photographing of the seized illegal drugs is not a burden imposed upon police officers in the conduct of legitimate buy-bust operations. On the contrary, it serves to protect them from accusations of planting, switching, or tampering of evidence in support to the government's strong stance against drug addiction. 39 This is further elaborated upon by the Court in People v. Tomawis: 40
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. Using the language of the Court in People v. Mendoza, without the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the DOJ and any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the drugs, the evils of switching, "planting" or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of RA 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the subject sachet that was evidence of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused.
The presence of the three witnesses must be secured not only during the inventory but more importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest. It is at this point in which the presence of the three witnesses is most needed, as it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug. If the buy-bust operation is legitimately conducted, the presence of the insulating witnesses would also controvert the usual defense of frame-up as the witnesses would be able to testify that the buy-bust operation and inventory of the seized drugs were done in their presence in accordance with Section 21 of RA 9165.
The practice of police operatives of not bringing to the intended place of arrest the three witnesses, when they could easily do so — and "calling them in" to the place of inventory to witness the inventory and photographing of the drugs only after the buy-bust operation has already been finished — does not achieve the purpose of the law in having these witnesses prevent or insulate against the planting of drugs.
To restate, the presence of the three witnesses at the time of seizure and confiscation of the drugs must be secured and complied with at the time of the warrantless arrest; such that they are required to be at or near the intended place of arrest so that they can be ready to witness the inventory and photographing of the seized and confiscated drugs "immediately after seizure and confiscation. 41 (Citation omitted, emphasis, italics, and underscoring in the original)
In the present case, the three required witnesses were not present during the buy-bust operation allegedly conducted. No one but the police officers witnessed the supposed marking by SPO3 Tacio and the photograph taking by PO3 Boado of the items seized from accused-appellant at the place of arrest. Accused-appellant was already apprehended when the statutory witnesses were called in and eventually arrived at the police station to witness the inventory.
Clearly, the buy-bust operation was not conducted in accordance with law. Without the presence of the three witnesses at the time of the warrantless arrest of accused-appellant, there could be no means to verify the veracity of the events that transpired on the day of the incident or whether the buy-bust operation actually took place. It casts doubt as to the origin of the seized drug and reasonably arouses the suspicion of frame-up or planting of evidence. Moreover, failure to comply with Section 21 implies a concomitant failure on the part of the prosecution to establish the identity of the corpus delicti, 42 an essential element of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
Taking into account the procedural lapses committed by the police in handling the seized shabu, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties cannot hold water. The presumption applies only when officers have shown compliance with "the standard of conduct of official duty required by law." 43 Therefore, both the RTC and the CA erred in convicting accused-appellant by relying on such presumption.
No less than the Constitution mandates that an accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. 44 The burden lies with the prosecution to overcome this presumption of innocence by presenting proof beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution must rest on its own merits and must not rely on the weakness of the defense. If the prosecution fails to meet the required evidence, the defense does not even need to present evidence in its own behalf; the presumption prevails and the accused should be acquitted. 45 Here, the prosecution failed to discharge its burden. Perforce, accused-appellant's acquittal is in order.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated August 16, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07010 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Ernesto del Rosario y Lagitaw a.k.a. "Don Don" is ACQUITTED of the crime charged against him for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for any other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to report to this Court, within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution, the action he has taken. Copies shall also be furnished to the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for his information.
The Regional Trial Court is directed to turn over the seized sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride to the Dangerous Drugs Board for destruction in accordance with law.
Let entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED."
(Zalameda, J., on official leave).
By authority of the Court:
MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) RUMAR D. PASIONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-12; penned by Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., with Associate Justices Noel G. Tijam (now retired) and Francisco P. Acosta, concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 42-71; penned by Presiding Judge Danilo P. Camacho.
3.Rollo, p. 2.
4.Id. at 3.
5.Id.
6.Id. at 3-5.
7.Id. at 6-7.
8. CA rollo, pp. 42-71.
9.Id. at 70-71.
10.Id. at 70.
11.Id. at 66-68.
12.Rollo, pp. 2-12.
13.Id. at 8.
14.Id. at 9.
15.Id.
16.Id. at 11.
17.Id. at 13-15.
18.Id. at 16.
19.Id. at 19-20.
20.Id. at 29-33.
21.Id. at 21-26.
22.Id. at 34-35.
23.CA rollo, pp. 22-41.
24.Id. at 30.
25.Id. at 85-102.
26.Id. at 93.
27.Id. at 98.
28.Id. at 93-94.
29.People v. Crispo, et al., 828 Phil. 416, 429 (2018).
30.People v. Eda, 793 Phil. 885, 896-897 (2016).
31.People v. Jaafar, 803 Phil. 582, 591 (2017).
32.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017).
33.People v. Nuarin, 764 Phil. 550, 557 (2015).
34.People v. Prudencio, 800 Phil. 128, 136 (2016).
35.People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 230 (2008).
36.741 Phil. 78 (2014).
37.Id. at 89-90.
38.Supra note 35 at 241.
39.People v. Tayan, G.R. No. 242160, July 8, 2019.
40.830 Phil. 385, (2018).
41.Id. at 408-409.
42.People v. Morales, 630 Phil. 215, 229-230 (2010).
43.People v. Que, 824 Phil. 882, 899 (2018).
44.1987 CONSTITUTION, Article III, Section 14 (2).
45.People v. Diputado, 813 Phil. 160, 177 (2017).