THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 227401. December 7, 2020.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. CESAR DELOS REYES y DIAZ AND CENON DELOS REYES y DIAZ, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated December 7, 2020, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 227401 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee v. CESAR DELOS REYES y DIAZ AND CENON DELOS REYES y DIAZ, accused-appellants). — The presence of representatives from the Department of Justice and the media, and an elected public official, during the inventory and photographing of the seized drugs at the place of apprehension and confiscation, are necessary in establishing the chain of custody.
This resolves an appeal under Rule 122 of the Rules of Court of the Court of Appeals' February 26, 2015 Decision, 1 affirming the October 14, 2013 Joint Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court of Batangas City, Branch 84. The Regional Trial Court found Cesar delos Reyes (Cesar) and Cenon delos Reyes (Cenon) guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, and Cesar guilty of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, in violation of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.
In two June 24, 2011 Informations, 3 Cesar and Cenon were charged with violating Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 and Cesar was charged with violating Article II, Section 11 of the same law:
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 16986
That on or about June 23, 2011 at around 12:35 in the morning at Brgy. Sta. Rita Karsada, Batangas City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together, not being authorized by law, did then and there knowingly, willfully, and criminally sell, dispense or deliver one (1) heat-sealed transparent sachet containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, more commonly known as shabu, with an aggregated weight of 0.12 gram, a dangerous drug, which is a clear violation of the above-cited law.
That accused Cesar delos Reyes has been previously convicted by final judgement under Criminal Case Nos. 9204, 10047, 10518, and 11129 all of Regional Trial Court Branches 7, 7, 84, and 2, Batangas City, on 02/28/2001, 3/14/2005, 3/1/2000 and 8/25/2000, respectively, all for violation of Republic Act 6425.
That accused Cenon delos Reyes has been previously convicted by final judgment under C.C. No. 10612 for Violation of Sec. 15, Art. 3 of Republic Act 6425 on September 5, 2000 at Regional Trial Court, Batangas City.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 16987
That on or about June 23, 2011 at around 12:35 in the morning at Brgy. Sta. Rita Karsada, Batangas City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused [Cesar delos Reyes], not being authorized by law, did then and there knowingly, willfully, and criminally possess or have under his custody one (1) transparent plastic sachet containing 0.40 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride more commonly known as "Shabu," a dangerous drug, which is a clear violation of the above-cited law.
That accused Cesar delos Reyes y Diaz has been previously convicted by final judgment under Criminal Case Nos. 9204, 10047, 10518 and 11129 all of Regional Trial Court Branches 7, 7, 84 and 2, Batangas City on 02/28/01, 3/14/05, 3/01/00 and 3/14/02, respectively.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4 (Emphasis in the original)
Both accused pled not guilty to the charges. Joint trial on the merits ensued. 5
According to the prosecution, Cesar and Cenon were caught selling shabu during a buy-bust operation. The prosecution's version of events is as follows:
On 22 June 2011, at 9:00 in the evening, PO2 Christian Boy Garcia Aranza (PO2 Aranza) of the Batangas City Police Station received information from a confidential asset that accused-appellant Cesar alias "Zarbot" was selling shabu near the Good Shepherd School at Barangay Sta. Rita Karsada, Batangas City. PO2 Aranza relayed this information to SPO3 Jayn Gonda (SPO3 Gonda). Thereafter, they planned a buy-bust operation wherein the asset was designated as the poseur-buyer. The buy-bust team was composed of SPO3 Gonda, PO2 Aranza, PO2 Alexander Olea (PO2 Olea) and PO2 Jonas Guarda (PO2 Guarda). PO2 Aranza received two (2) P1,000.00 bills from SPO3 Gonda. He placed his initials "CGA" at the lower left front page of each bill. He also prepared the Coordination Report and the Pre-Operation Report, and sent them via facsimile to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Canlubang Office. Before leaving the police station, SPO3 Gonda requested the duty desk officer, PO3 Carlos Llagado (PO3 Llagado), to enter into the police blotter the departure of the buy-bust team, which was recorded under Entry No. 005620. Thereafter, said team proceeded to Barangay Sta. Rita Karsada.
Upon their arrival in Barangay Sta. Rita Karsada, at 12:00 midnight, SPO3 Gonda proceeded to the Barangay hall and recorded in the barangay blotter the planned buy-bust operation. PO2 Aranza handed the two (2) P1,000.00 bills to the asset, who alighted from the van and walked ahead of the rest of the buy-bust team. After several minutes, accused-appellant Cesar arrived, riding in a tricycle driven by his brother accused-appellant Cenon. After a minute or so, the asset handed the marked money to accused-appellant Cenon while accused-appellant Cesar took out a small plastic sachet from a round black leatherette case and handed it to the asset. After receiving the small plastic sachet, the asset made a thumbs up, which was the pre-arranged signal. The team immediately alighted from the van and approached accused-appellants. PO2 Aranza arrested accused-appellant Cesar while PO2 Guarda arrested accused-appellant Cenon. The asset handed the deck of shabu sold to him by accused-appellants to PO2 Aranza.
PO2 Aranza frisked accused-appellant Cesar and recovered the black leatherette case containing another deck of shabu. PO2 Guarda frisked accused-appellant Cenon and found in his pocket the marked money. At the place of arrest, PO2 Aranza marked the sachet of shabu sold by accused-appellant with "CGA 6-23-11," while the sachet of shabu found in possession of accused-appellant Cesar was marked with "CGAI 6-23-11." PO2 Aranza marked the black leatherette case with "CGA." PO2 Olea took pictures of the seized items, and the buy-bust team proceeded to the barangay hall of Sta. Rita Karsada.
At the Barangay hall, Kagawad Nazario Baual recorded in the blotter the result of the buy-bust operation. PO3 Eric de Chavez (PO3 de Chavez), the duty investigator, arrived and called the representatives from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ). The inventory was conducted in the presence of DOJ Representative Evelyn Jovellanos (Jovellanos), media representative Maricia Lualhati (Lualhati), and elected official representative Kagawad Baual, who all signed the Certificate of Inventory prepared by PO3 de Chavez. Pictures were again taken during the inventory. PO2 Aranza turned over the two sachets of shabu to PO3 de Chavez before the buy-bust team left the Barangay hall. Both officers also signed the chain of custody form. Thereafter, they returned to the Batangas City Police Station.
After the buy-bust team and accused-appellants arrived at the police station, PO3 Llagado recorded the subject incident in the police blotter as Entry No. 005621, 6/23/11 at 2:30 a.m. PO3 de Chavez prepared the letter request for laboratory examination of the seized two sachets of shabu. Thereafter, he brought said sachets of shabu and said letter request to the Batangas Provincial Crime Laboratory Office. In Chemistry Report No. BD-152-2011 prepared by Police Inspector Herminia Carandang Llacuna, the two sachets tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. 6
On the other hand, the defense claimed that no buy-bust operation took place. Instead, after failing to find drugs in Cenon and Cesar's possession during an illegal search, the police officers framed them. According to the defense:
On 22 June 2011, at around 5:00 to 6:00 in the evening, Shirley Mendoza (Shirley), live-in partner of accused-appellant Cesar, fetched the latter at Barangay R.R. Station after she bought diaper for their one (1) month old child. They boarded the tricycle driven by accused-appellant Cenon in going home to Happy Village, Barangay Sta. Rita, Batangas City. While they were approaching the apartment of Shirley, a man whom accused-appellant Cenon recognized as SPO3 Gonda flagged them down and rode at the backseat. When Shirley and accused-appellants alighted from the tricycle, SPO3 Gonda also alighted and was joined by PO2 Olea who alighted from a motorcycle. PO2 Olea asked accused-appellant Cesar if they could talk inside their house. The latter acceded since he recognized PO2 Olea as a police officer. Shirley's brother Arturo Mendoza (Arturo), opened the door. Once inside the house, SPO3 Gonda told accused-appellant Cesar that someone informed them that he was keeping illegal drugs. When accused-appellant Cesar denied the accusation, PO2 Olea frisked him and told him to bring out the drugs. He was also ordered to take off his clothes. The policemen, however, did not find any drug. Accused-appellant Cenon was also frisked, but no illegal drug was found in his possession. The policemen further searched the groceries of Shirley, the kitchen, two (2) bedrooms, the bathroom and sala for one and a half (1 1/2) hours, but no illegal drugs were found. When accused-appellant Cesar asked them for a warrant, they showed their firearms and told him that it was not necessary. Despite the fact that no drugs were found, the policemen invited accused-appellants and Shirley to go with them to the police station for a few questions.
At the police station, accused-appellants were made to wait at the Intelligence Section's room. PO2 Guarda took accused-appellant Cesar's wallet containing P8,000.00 and his Seiko wristwatch. The earnings of accused-appellant Cenon worth P200,00, n his driver's license and motorcycle were also taken. PO2 Guarda persistently asked them where they were keeping the drugs. Later, accused-appellants were put inside the detention cell. SPO3 Gonda gave Shirley money for her fare and allowed her to go home to nurse her baby who was left with Arturo.
Afterwards, PO2 Guarda and PO2 Aranza boarded accused-appellants in a van. They fetched two (2) women, who turned out to be representatives from the media and the DOJ, and they proceeded to the Barangay hall of Sta. Rita Karsada. Accused-appellants were required to stay at the lobby except when pictures of them were taken while standing near the table. They were also brought to the entrance of Happy Village and were again photographed as they stood near the tricycle of accused-appellant Cenon. They again boarded the van and dropped off the two women at the place where they were earlier fetched. The police officers and accused-appellants returned to the police station. 7
On October 4, 2013, the Regional Trial Court rendered a Decision convicting Cesar and Cenon of the crimes charged. The dispositive portion of the Decision stated:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
In Criminal Case No. 16986, accused CESAR DELOS REYES y Diaz "Zarbot" and CENON DELOS REYES y Diaz are both found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 (selling of dangerous drugs) and both are hereby sentenced to each suffer a penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (PhP500,000.00) each.
In Criminal Case No. 16987, accused CESAR DELOS REYES y Diaz alias "Zarbot" is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 (possession of dangerous drugs) and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY to THIRTEEN (13) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY and to pay a fine of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (PhP300,000.00).
In the service of their sentence, the period of their preventive imprisonment shall be credited in their favor subject to the conditions set forth in Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code.
The subject dangerous drugs or shabu, with markings "CGA'' and "CGA1" (both Exhibit "O"), shall be immediately transmitted to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for its proper disposal.
SO ORDERED. 8
On appeal, the prosecution argued that the Regional Trial Court correctly found Cesar and Cenon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. It claimed that they were arrested in flagrante delicto, making their warrantless arrests valid. 9 The presentation of the confidential information was not essential, as the police officers' testimonies on the buy-bust operation were sufficient. 10 The prosecution likewise argued that the integrity and identity of the drugs seized from Cesar and Cenon were preserved, from confiscation until examination. 11
The defense argued that Cesar and Cenon's arrests were unlawful, because at the time of their arrests, they had not performed any overt act showing that they had just committed, were actually committing, or attempting to commit any offense. 12 Further, since the police officers' testimonies were inconsistent, there was no believable proof that the buy-bust operation actually took place, especially as the confidential informant was not presented during trial. 13 Finally, the corpus delicti of the offenses charged was not proved, because the police officers did not comply with the requirements of Republic Act No. 9165, Section 21.
In its February 26, 2015 Decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Regional Trial Court. The dispositive portion of its Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The Judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Batangas City, Branch 84, dated 4 October 2013 in Criminal Case Nos. 16986 and 16987 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 14
First, the Court of Appeals found that an actual buy-bust operation took place, as established by the police officers' testimonies, documentary, and physical evidence. The buy-bust operation showed that Cenon and Cesar's arrests were warrantless in flagrante delicto, as the arrests occurred when they performed the overt act of selling shabu in the presence of the police officers. Consequently, the seizure of the illegal drugs fell under a search incidental to a lawful arrest, as provided in Rule 126, Section 13 of the Rules of Court. 15
Second, the Court of Appeals held that all the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu were present in this case. For illegal sale, the police officers positively identified Cesar as the seller of the sachet to their informant, while the money was handed over to Cenon. For illegal possession, once the sale was completed, Cesar was frisked and a second sachet of shabu was found on his possession. Further, Cesar could not offer any explanation for his possession, and did not have authority to possess the drug. 16
The Court of Appeals did not give weight to Cesar and Cenon's claim that the police officers' testimonies were inconsistent. It found that these alleged inconsistencies were minor, unable to negate the collective and positive testimonies that proved the sale and possession of illegal drugs in this case. 17 The appellate court further held that presenting the confidential informant in the trial court was unnecessary, because the police officers were able to adequately testify as to the events of the buy-bust operation. 18
Finally, the Court of Appeals found that the police officers satisfactorily complied with the requirements of Republic Act No. 9165, Section 21. It found that all the links in the chain of custody of the seized shabu were preserved. Moreover, Cesar and Cenon's contention that they were absent during the inventory was found unbelievable, because there were photographs showing that the two (2) of them were present at the signing of the inventory. 19
Cesar and Cenon filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeals on March 30, 2015. 20 Pursuant to this Court's May 12, 2015 Resolution, which gave due course to the notice of appeal, the Court of Appeals then elevated the records of this case to this Court. 21
In this Court's December 7, 2016 Resolution, 22 it noted the records of this case forwarded by the Court of Appeals and informed the parties that they may file their supplemental briefs.
Both plaintiff-appellee 23 and counsel for accused-appellants 24 manifested that they would no longer be filing supplemental briefs, which were noted by this Court in its March 27, 2017 Resolution. 25
The issues to be resolved in this case are: (1) whether or not accused-appellants Cesar delos Reyes and Cenon delos Reyes are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal sale of shabu; and (2) whether or not accused-appellant Cesar delos Reyes is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal possession of shabu.
Further to Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, the elements of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs are: (1) the identities of the buyer, seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it. 26
As for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, the following elements must be proven: (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. 27
In both crimes, the drug itself is the corpus delicti of the offenses charged. Thus, preserving the identity and integrity of the seized drug is essential to secure a conviction for illegal sale and possession. Such preservation must be in consonance with the requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 which states:
SECTION 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 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;
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done under oath by the forensic laboratory examine, shall be issued within twenty-four (24) hours after the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of the dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued on the completed forensic laboratory examination on the same within the next twenty-four (24) hours;
(4) After the filing of the criminal case, the Court shall, within seventy-two (72) hours, conduct an ocular inspection of the confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals, including the instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, and through the PDEA shall within twenty-four (24) hours thereafter proceed with the destruction or burning of 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 DOJ, civil society groups and any elected public official. The Board shall draw up the guidelines on the manner of proper disposition and destruction of such item/s which shall be borne by the offender: Provided, That those item/s of lawful commerce, as determined by the Board, shall be donated, used or recycled for legitimate purposes: Provided, further, That a representative sample, duly weighed and recorded is retained;
(5) The Board shall then issue a sworn certification as to the fact of destruction or burning of the subject item/s which, together with the representative sample/s in the custody of the PDEA, shall be submitted to the court having jurisdiction over the case. In all instances, the representative sample/s shall be kept to a minimum quantity as determined by the Board;
(6) The alleged offender or his/her representative or counsel shall be allowed to personally observe all of the above proceedings and his/her presence shall not constitute an admission of guilt. In case the said offender or accused refuses or fails to appoint a representative after due notice in writing to the accused or his/her counsel within seventy-two (72) hours before the actual burning or destruction of the evidence in question, the Secretary of Justice shall appoint a member of the public attorney's office to represent the former;
(7) After the promulgation and judgment in the criminal case wherein the representative sample/s was presented as evidence in court, the trial prosecutor shall inform the Board of the final termination of the case and, in turn, shall request the court for leave to turn over the said representative sample/s to the PDEA for proper disposition and destruction within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of the same; and
(8) Transitory Provision: a) Within twenty-four (24) hours from the effectivity of this Act, dangerous drugs defined herein which are presently in possession of law enforcement agencies shall, with leave of court, be burned or destroyed, in the presence of representatives of the Court, DOJ, Department of Health (DOH) and the accused and/or his/her counsel, and, b) Pending the organization of the PDEA, the custody, disposition, and burning or destruction of seized/surrendered dangerous drugs provided under this Section shall be implemented by the DOH.
Superficially, the chain of custody of the seized drugs remained intact in this case. At the crime scene, PO2 Aranza marked the sachets, then turned them over to PO3 de Chavez at the Sta. Rita Karsada barangay hall. There, PO3 de Chavez conducted the inventory in the presence of representatives from the Department of Justice, the media, and an elected public official. He later prepared the requests for drug tests and laboratory examination, and personally delivered the seized drugs to the Provincial Crime Laboratory, Chemistry Report No. BD-152-2011 showed that the seized drugs tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. At trial, PO2 Aranza, PO3 de Chavez, and PO2 Guardia all positively identified the seized drugs, as the same ones they recovered from the accused-appellants during the buy-bust operation. 28 The Court of Appeals even rebuffed accused-appellants' claim of their absence during the conduct of the inventory. 29
However, a closer examination of the initial confiscation of the seized drugs shows the buy-bust team's failure to comply with the chain of custody requirements from the beginning. At the place of arrest, PO2 Aranza marked the seized drugs, then PO2 Olea took pictures of the drugs as well as the case containing one of the confiscated sachets. 30 It was only after the marking and photographing that the buy-bust team went to the barangay hall to conduct the inventory in the presence of a Department of Justice representative, a media representative, and an elected barangay official. 31 These are not the proper steps described in Section 21 (1) which requires, among others, that the inventory and photographing of the seized drugs be conducted "immediately after seizure and confiscation'' at the place of apprehension. Further, in a planned buy-bust operation, the three (3) witnesses must already be physically present at the time of apprehension, so that the inventory and photographing may be conducted in their presence. 32 As explained in People v. Tomawis: 33
The phrase "immediately after seizure and confiscation" means that the physical inventory and photographing of the drugs were intended by the law to be made immediately after, or at the place of apprehension. And only if this is not practicable, the IRR allows that the inventory and photographing could be done as soon as the buy-bust team reaches the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team. By the same token, however, this also means that the three required witnesses should already be physically present at the time of apprehension — a requirement that can easily be complied with by the buy-bust team considering that the buy-bust operation is, by its nature, a planned activity. Simply put, the buy-bust team has enough time and opportunity to bring with them said witnesses. 34
In order to excuse noncompliance with the directives of Section 21, the police officers must offer a justifiable reason:
Failure to comply with Section 21 "is not fatal to the prosecution's case provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers." This exception, however, "will only be triggered by the existence of a ground that justifies departure from the general rule.''
In this case, the prosecution offered no justifiable reason why they failed to comply with the conditions provided for under the law. To underscore, "for the saving clause to apply, it is important that the prosecution explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses, and that the integrity and value of the seized evidence had been preserved." Simply put, "the justifiable ground for noncompliance must be proven as a fact." Hence, courts cannot assume what these reasons are, if they even exist at all.
Moreover, the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties cannot work in favor of the law enforcers since the records revealed severe lapses in complying with the requirements provided for under the law. "The presumption stands when no reason exists in the records by which to doubt the regularity of the performance of official duty." Thus, this presumption "will never be stronger than the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. Otherwise, a mere rule of evidence will defeat the constitutionally enshrined right of an accused to be presumed innocent." 35 (Citations omitted)
Yet, the police officers did not offer any reason or explanation why the inventory of the seized drugs was conducted at the barangay hall, and not at the place of arrest and confiscation, where they had marked and photographed the contraband. They also did not explain why the three (3) witnesses required to be physically present at the time of apprehension were absent, even though the buy-bust operation had been planned from the start. The requirements of Section 21 ensure the identity and integrity of most vital pieces of evidence — the seized drugs — especially in instances, such as in this case, where very minuscule amounts were confiscated. 36
Since the prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti of the offense by not establishing an unbroken chain of custody in compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, the guilt of the accused-appellants was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the February 26, 2015 Decision of the Court of Appeals, Manila, in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 06430 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellants Cesar Delos Reyes y Diaz and Cenon Delos Reyes y Diaz are ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They are ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless they are confined for any other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is directed to report the action he has taken to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
The Regional Trial Court is directed to turn over the seized sachets of shabu to the Dangerous Drugs Board for destruction in accordance with law.
Let entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-17. The February 26, 2015 Decision docketed as CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 06430 was penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and concurred in by Associate Justice Florito S. Macalino and Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles of the Twelfth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
2. CA rollo, pp. 66-80. The October 14, 2013 Joint Decision docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 16986 and 16987 was penned by Judge Dorcas P. Ferriols-Perez Branch 84, Regional Trial Court, Batangas City.
3.Id. at 66-67.
4.Id.
5.Id. at 68.
6.Rollo, pp. 4-6.
7.Id. at 6-7.
8. CA rollo, pp. 79-80.
9.Id. at 111.
10.Id. at 112-113.
11.Id. at 119.
12.Id. at 52.
13.Id. at 56.
14.Rollo, p. 16.
15.Id. at 10.
16.Id. at 11.
17.Id. at 12.
18.Id. at 13.
19.Id. at 14-15.
20.Id. at 147-148.
21.Id. at 150.
22.Rollo, pp. 23-24.
23.Id. at 30-31.
24.Id. at 25-29.
25.Id. at 34.
26.People v. Ceralde, 815 Phil. 711, 718 (2017) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division].
27.People v. Morales, 630 Phil. 215, 228 (2010) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division].
28.Rollo, p. 14.
29.Id. at 15.
30. CA rollo, p. 69.
31.Id.
32.See People v. Arellaga, G.R. No. 231796, August 24, 2020, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/66340> [Per J. Hernando, Second Division]; People v. Silayan, G.R. No. 229362, June 19, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65366> [Per J. Carpio, Second Division].
33. 830 Phil. 385 (2018) [Per J. Caguioa, Second Division].
34.Id. at 405.
35.People v. Segundo, 814 Phil. 697, 727-728 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
36.Id.
n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.