THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 250890. September 13, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ROGELIO DILOY y PAULE, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 13, 2021, which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 250890 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, v. ROGELIO DILOY y PAULE, accused-appellant.) — In two separate Informations, accused Rogelio Diloy y Paule (Diloy) was charged with illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs under Sections 5 1 and 11 2 of Republic Act No. 9165. The Informations read:
Criminal Case No. 243-13
"That on or about the third (3rd) day of May 2013, in the City of Olongapo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his effective possession and control Thirty One Thousandths (0.031) of a gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride otherwise known as "shabu," placed in one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, said accused not having the corresponding license or prescription to possess said dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW."
Criminal Case No. 244-13
"That on or about the third (3rd) day of May 2013, in the City of Olongapo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being lawfully authorized, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly deliver and sell to PO2 Ryan Garcia P300.00 (SN-LL273317, JL080708 and JK635469) worth of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride otherwise known as "shabu," a dangerous drug weighing Nineteen Thousandths (0.019) of a gram placed in one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet.
CONTRARY TO LAW." 3
Diloy pleaded not guilty to the charges. Trial on the merits then ensued. 4
The prosecution alleged that on May 3, 2013, a confidential asset sent a text message to Police Officer II Ryan Garcia (PO2 Garcia) stating that Diloy was involved in drug-peddling. Acting on the tip, a buy-bust team from the Philippine National Police-Office of the City Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Team (Anti-Illegal Drugs Team), Olongapo City, conducted a tasking and briefing for an entrapment operation. 5
Afterwards, the buy-bust team arrived at Kalalake Street, Barangay Pag-asa, Olongapo City at around 6:00 p.m. Assigned as the poseur-buyer, PO2 Garcia went to Diloy's house along with the confidential informant, while the back-up operatives positioned themselves along an alley outside the house. 6 When Diloy arrived, the informant introduced PO2 Garcia as an interested drug buyer. Diloy asked how much PO2 Garcia needed, who replied "tres lang.'' PO2 Garcia then handed Diloy three pre-marked P100.00 bills. In exchange, Diloy handed a sachet containing white crystalline substance to PO2 Garcia, who lit a cigarette as signal to the back-up officers. 7
Thereafter, Police Officer II Stephen Domingo (PO2 Domingo) arrested and frisked Diloy, retrieving from him the marked money and another sachet of suspected drugs. PO2 Garcia marked his initials "RG" on the sachet, 8 while PO2 Domingo kept the other sachet in his wallet. 9 The seized items were brought to the Anti-Illegal Drugs Team's office. 10
At 10:30 a.m. the following day, 11 the arresting officers marked, inventoried, and photographed the confiscated items. 12 Police Officer II Owen Cruz (PO2 Cruz) issued an Inventory Receipt and Chain of Custody (Inventory Receipt) which was witnessed by Diloy himself, PO2 Domingo, Department of Justice representative Emelita Reyes (Reyes), and Barangay Captain Randy Sionzon (Sionzon). Reyes and Barangay Captain Sionzon affixed their signatures on the Inventory Receipt. 13
PO2 Cruz requested for a qualitative examination of the confiscated items to the Olongapo City Crime Laboratory. A chemistry report confirmed that the contents of the sachets were positive for shabu. 14
The defense presented Diloy as its sole witness. 15 He testified that he was sleeping alone on May 3, 2013, when six men suddenly entered his house, handcuffed him, and searched his person and house without a warrant. He was then detained in the police station. The next day, Diloy was taken to the Olongapo City Crime Laboratory where his urine sample was taken for examination. Afterwards, he was brought to the Olongapo City Hall of Justice for inquest proceedings. 16
In a Decision, 17 the Regional Trial Court convicted Diloy for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. The dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered,
1. In Criminal Case No. 243-2013, this court finds accused ROGELIO DILOY y PAULE GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, Art. II of Republic Act No. 9165 and sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years, as maximum and a fine of Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00); and
2. In Criminal Case No. 244-2013, this court finds accused ROGELIO DILOY y PAULE GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Art. II of Republic Act No. 9165 and sentences him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00).
Let the sachets of shabu be forwarded to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for proper disposition.
SO ORDERED. 18
The trial court lent credence to the prosecution's version of events and rejected Diloy's defenses of denial and frame-up. 19 It also maintained that the apprehending officers' failure to strictly comply with the procedural safeguards of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 was justified. 20 It ruled that the unavailability of the Department of Justice media representatives, and an elected public official was warranted since the integrity and the evidentiary value of the drugs were properly preserved. 21
On appeal before the Court of Appeals, Diloy argued that the apprehending officers' irregular handling of the sachets casts doubt on their integrity and identity. 22 On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General maintained that the requisite chain of custody was followed, and that the integrity and identity of the seized items had been preserved. 23
In its Decision, 24 the Court of Appeals affirmed Diloy's conviction. The dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, promises considered, the instant petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated May 11, 2016 of the RTC, Branch 74, Olongapo City in Criminal Case Nos. 243-13 and 244-13 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 25
The Court of Appeals ruled that all the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs were proven beyond reasonable doubt, and that the chain of custody had not been broken. 26 It held that PO2 Cruz substantially complied with the requisites in marking the seized items, when preparing the inventory. 27
Moreover, the Court of Appeals held that the absence of Diloy's signature in the Inventory Receipt is not fatal to the prosecution's case. 28 It is highly illogical to make an accused sign an Inventory Receipt when he disowned the seized items in the first place. 29
Diloy filed his Notice of Appeal. 30 In its Resolution, 31 the Court of Appeals noted Diloy's Notice of Appeal and forwarded the records of the case to this Court.
This Court noted the records and allowed the parties to submit their supplemental briefs. 32 In a Manifestation, 33 accused-appellant indicated that he would no longer file a supplemental brief. The Office of the Solicitor General filed a similar Manifestation. 34
Accused-appellant claims that the apprehending officers' failure to conduct the marking and inventory immediately after seizure constitutes a clear and unexplained break in the chain of custody. 35 He points out that the seized items were only marked, inventoried, and photographed by the police officers a day after the entrapment operation. 36 Moreover, he was not present during the inventory, and he did not sign the Inventory Receipt. 37 He adds that the marking of the seized items was incomplete because the police officers failed to indicate the place, date, and time of confiscation, and merely placed their initials on the sachets. 38
Accused-appellant further argues that there is a break in the chain of custody. 39 The Inventory Receipt does not show to whom PO2 Cruz turned over the items, while the laboratory technician who received the specimen was not identified. 40 These raise doubt on the integrity and the identity of the seized drug. 41
On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General maintains that accused-appellant's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. It avers that all the elements necessary to prove the crimes charged were clearly established by the prosecution. 42
Moreover, the Office of the Solicitor General belies accused-appellant's claim that the marking was done a day after the buy-bust. 43 It alleges that the marking was done at the office, right after the buy-bust operations. 44 However, due to the absence of the Department of Justice representative and the elected public official, the inventory was done a day later. 45
It further contends that the chain of custody is unbroken, recalling the events during the marking and inventory. 46 PO2 Garcia held the shabu he bought from accused-appellant, while PO2 Domingo took custody of the sachet he retrieved after frisking accused-appellant. On the way back to the office, PO2 Garcia and PO2 Domingo held the sachets. 47 Upon their arrival at the office, the marking was done. 48 PO2 Garcia and PO2 Domingo then signed their initials on the sachet in their custody. 49 The next day, after the inventory, PO2 Garcia and PO2 Domingo turned over the sachets to investigating officer PO2 Cruz, who then turned over the items to the laboratory for examination. 50 From the laboratory, the specimen were submitted to the Court of Appeals. 51
The issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not accused-appellant Rogelio Diloy y Paule is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 11 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.
For a successful prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be shown: "(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor." 52 Further, to prove that the sale took place, the following must be established: "(1) proof that the transaction or sale took place and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence." 53
As to illegal possession of dangerous drugs, it must be shown that:
(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. 54 (Citation omitted)
Here, the Court of Appeals and the trial court found that designated poseur-buyer PO2 Garcia's testimony was sufficient to establish the elements of illegal sale. In his testimony, PO2 Garcia confirmed that accused-appellant handed him the drugs after being paid P300.00. 55
Likewise, all the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs are satisfied in this case. 56 Apart from the plastic sachet of shabu exchanged during the buy-bust operation, accused-appellant was found in possession of another sachet of shabu, which he was not authorized to possess. 57 Further, the mere possession of a prohibited drug constitutes prima facie evidence of animus possidendi, or intent to possess. 58
In both illegal sale and illegal possession, jurisprudence has discussed the importance of the corpus delicti, as follows:
In both illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, "the illicit drugs confiscated from the accused comprise the corpus delicti of the charges." Thus, their identity and integrity must be established beyond reasonable doubt. It is the prosecution's duty "to ensure that the illegal drugs offered in court are the very same items seized from the accused." 59 (Citations omitted)
Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 provides for chain of custody requirements regarding "confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered dangerous drugs[,]" and drug paraphernalia. The requirements laid down in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 have already been amended by Republic Act No. 10640. However, the incidents here occurred in 2013, prior to the amendment in 2014. Thus, this case is governed by Section 21 as provided in Republic Act No. 9165, which reads:
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, plans 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[.]
In drug operations, the roles of the Department of Justice representative, media representative, and elected public official are all crucial. The importance of these witnesses' presence during actual arrest and seizure is explained in People v. Tomawis. 60 Thus:
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 the arrest so that they can be ready to witness the inventory and photographing of the seized and confiscated drugs "immediately after seizure and confiscation." 61 (Citations omitted)
Further, this Court has firmly explained that the inventory and photographing must be done immediately right at the place of arrest. In People v. Sultan: 62
Section 21 mandates the conduct of inventory and taking of photographs "immediately after seizure and confiscation," which means that these must be done at the place of the arrest. Que explained:
What is critical in drug cases is not the bare conduct of inventory, marking, and photographing. Instead, it is the certainty that the items allegedly taken from the accused retain their integrity, even as they make their way from the accused to an officer effecting the seizure, to an investigating officer, to a forensic chemist, and ultimately, to courts where they are introduced as evidence. . . .
Section 21 (1)'s requirements are designed to make the first and second links foolproof. Conducting the inventory and photographing immediately after seizure, exactly where the seizure was done, or at a location as practicably close to it, minimizes, if not eliminates, room for adulteration or the planting of evidence[.] 63 (Citation omitted)
Given the risks peculiar to narcotics, this Court has set the standards for their handling, which are stricter than those pertaining to other materials. Thus:
Hence, in authenticating the same, a standard more stringent than that applied to cases involving objects which are readily identifiable must be applied, a more exacting standard that entails a chain of custody of the item with sufficient completeness if only to render it improbable that the original item has either been exchanged with another or been contaminated or tampered with. 64 (Emphasis supplied)
A sequential mechanism of authentication is required to ensure that the evidence presented in court is what it is claimed to be. Chain of custody is the "duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plants . . . sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment at each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court and destruction." 65
It is true that, in certain occasions, exceptions to Section 21's chain of custody requirements may be accommodated. However, before any exception can be admitted, the prosecution must first acknowledge the procedural lapses and must plead justifiable grounds for these lapses. The prosecution must likewise allege the "specific safety measures taken in view of the deviations made from the chain of custody requirements." 66
Concerning the absence of required witnesses, "earnest efforts" must be undertaken in order to ensure their attendance. 67 This Court has explained:
Earnest effort to secure the attendance of the necessary witnesses must be proven. Peoplev. Ramos requires:
It is well to note that the absence of these required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible. However, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses under Section 21 of RA 9165 must be adduced. In People v. Umipang, the Court held that the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under the law for "a sheer statement that representatives were unavailable without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look for other representatives, given the circumstances is to be regarded as a flimsy excuse." Verily, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance. These considerations arise from the fact that police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time — beginning from the moment they have received the information about the activities of the accused until the time of his arrest — to prepare for a buy-bust operation and consequently, make the necessary arrangements beforehand knowing full well that they would have to strictly comply with the set procedure prescribed in Section 21 of RA 9165. As such, police officers are compelled not only to state reasons for their non-compliance, but must in fact, also convince the Court that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedure, and that under the given circumstances, their actions were reasonable. 68 (Citations omitted.)
Here, there is no semblance of compliance with Section 21.
First, none of the required witnesses — a representative from the media, a representative of the Department of Justice, and an elected public official — were present during accused-appellant's supposed arrest and seizure.
This is confirmed by the Court of Appeals, which found that the Department of Justice representative and the barangay captain were only present during the physical inventory that was done the following day, and not during the buy-bust operation. 69 Furthermore, there was no mention of a representative of the media in the roster of witnesses. 70
Second, apart from the absence of required witnesses, to reiterate, the Court of Appeals established that the inventory was done the day after accused-appellant Diloy's arrest. 71
It is damning to the prosecution's case that the inventory was done at 10:30 a.m. the next day 72 and not immediately after the arrest and seizure. The apprehending officers failed to explain why it took hours for them to conduct the inventory and to take photographs of the items.
Third, only a representative from the Department of Justice and a barangay captain signed the Inventory Receipt. 73 Neither accused-appellant nor his representative or counsel were asked to sign the Inventory Receipt in blatant violation of Section 21. It bears to stress that Section 21 requires that there must be an inventory sheet signed by the accused or his representative, along with the required witnesses.
Finally, no allowable exception to Section 21 can be applied in this case. The police operatives undoubtedly failed in offering any justifiable ground for the absence of the required witnesses.
A conviction cannot be sustained when this Court cannot be assured that the drugs presented as evidence are exactly what the prosecution purports them to be.
The allegedly confiscated shabu amounted to three centigrams and less than two centigrams. 74 The quantity is so miniscule that it only amounts to about 1.5% and less than 1%, respectively, of the weight of a five-centavo coin (1.9 grams) or a one-centavo coin (2.0 grams). 75 In People v. Holgado, 76 this Court has emphasized that "[l]aw enforcers should not trifle with the legal requirement to ensure integrity in the chain of custody of seized dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia." 77 This is especially true when the case involves a minuscule amount of drugs. 78 Thus:
While the miniscule amount of narcotics seized is by itself not a ground for acquittal, this circumstance underscores the need for more exacting compliance with Section 21. In Mallillin v. People, this court said that "the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is small and is one that has physical characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form to substances familiar to people in their daily lives." 79 (Citations omitted)
Thus, accused-appellant's conviction must be reversed and set aside. The arresting officers' failure to comply with Section 21's mandatory requirements on handling the seized illegal drugs engenders reasonable doubt on an essential element — the corpus delicti — of the offenses raised against accused-appellant.
Moreover, it was a grave error on the part of the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals to merely rely on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by the police operatives. This Court has previously explained that "the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions cannot substitute for compliance and mend the broken links. For it is a mere disputable presumption that cannot prevail over clear and convincing evidence to the contrary." 80
It is settled that a presumption of regularity cannot stand when there are manifest irregularities. 81 In People v. Kamad: 82
The presumption [of regularity in the performance of official duty] applies when nothing in the record suggests that the law enforcers deviated from the standard conduct of official duty required by law; where the official act is irregular on its face, the presumption cannot arise. In light of the flagrant lapses we noted, the lower courts were obviously wrong when they relied on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. 83
The apprehending officers' utter disregard for the chain of custody requirements, as well as the serious procedural lapses, effectively impeached the seized items' identity and integrity. Accordingly, the prosecution did not adequately establish the quantum of evidence needed to convict, or proof beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, accused-appellant's acquittal must follow.
WHEREFORE, the December 20, 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 08470 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Rogelio Diloy y Paule is hereby ACQUITTED. Accused-appellant is ordered RELEASED from confinement, unless he is being held for some other legal grounds.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections for immediate implementation. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to report the action he has taken to this Court within five days from receipt of this Resolution. For their information, copies shall also be furnished to the Police General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. aScITE
The Regional Trial Court is directed to turn over the sachets of shabu subject of this case to the Dangerous Drugs Board for destruction in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Republic Act No. 9165 (2002), sec. 5 provides:
SECTION 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
2. Republic Act No. 9165 (2002), sec. 17 provides:
SECTION 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:
(1) 10 grams or more of opium;
(2) 10 grams or more of morphine;
(3) 10 grams or more of heroin;
(4) 10 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride;
(5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu";
(6) 10 grams or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil;
(7) 500 grams or more of marijuana; and
(8) 10 grams or more of other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) or "ecstasy," paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA), trimethoxyamphetamine (TMA), lysergic acid diethylamine (LSD), gamma hydroxybutyrate (GHB), and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements, as determined and promulgated by the Board in accordance to Section 93, Article XI of this Act.
3. Rollo, pp. 4-54.
4. Id.
5. Id. at 6.
6. Id.
7. Id. at 7.
8. CA rollo, p. 52.
9. Rollo, p. 8.
10. Id. at 7.
11. CA rollo, p. 52.
12. Rollo, p. 7.
13. Id.
14. Id.
15. Id. at 9.
16. Id. at 10.
17. CA rollo, pp. 45-53. The May 11, 2016 Decision was penned by Presiding Judge Roline M. Ginez-Jabalde of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 74, Olongapo City.
18. Id. at 53.
19. Id. at 49-51.
20. Id. at 52.
21. Id.
22. CA rollo, p. 34.
23. Id. at 65-66.
24. Rollo, pp. 3-24. The December 20, 2017 Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 08470 was penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and concurred in by Associate Justices Victoria Isabel A. Parades and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles of the Special Second Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
25. Id. at 23.
26. Id. at 13.
27. Id. at 20.
28. Id.
29. Id. at 20-21.
30. CA rollo, pp. 114-115. January 16, 2018 Notice of Appeal by the Accused-Appellant.
31. Id. at 117.
32. Rollo, pp. 31-32.
33. Id. at 33-35. July 20, 2020 Manifestation in Lieu of Supplemental Brief for the Accused-Appellant.
34. Id. at 38-40. September 11, 2020 Manifestation and Motion for the Plaintiff-Appellee.
35. CA rollo, pp. 35-37.
36. Id. at 36.
37. Id. at 37.
38. Id. at 38.
39. Id.
40. Id.
41. Id.
42. Id. at 71.
43. Id. at 75.
44. Id.
45. Id.
46. Id. at 77.
47. Id.
48. Id.
49. Id. at 78.
50. Id.
51. Id.
52. People v. Unisa, 674 Phil. 89, 108 (2011) [Per J. Perez, Second Division], citing People v. Manlangit, 654 Phil. 427 (2011) [Per J. Velasco, First Division].
53. People v. Morales, 630 Phil. 215, 228 (2010) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division], citing People v. Darisan, et al., 597 Phil. 479, 485 (2009) [Per J. Corona, First Division] and People v. Partoza, 605 Phil. 883 (2009) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
54. People v. Morales, 630 Phil. 215, 228 (2010) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division].
55. Rollo, p. 14.
56. Id. at 16.
57. Id.
58. Id.
59. People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 238339, August 7, 2019 <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65610> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
60. 830 Phil. 385 (2018) [Per J. Caguioa, Second Division].
61. Id. at 408-409.
62. People v. Sultan, G.R. No. 225210, August 7, 2019 <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65518> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
63. Id.
64. Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
65. Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1 (2002).
66. People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 2338339, August 7, 2019 <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65610>. [Per J. Leonen, Third Division], citing People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 234 (2008) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
67. Id.
68. People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64400> [Per J. Leonen, En Banc].
69. Rollo, p. 7.
70. Id.
71. Id.
72. CA rollo, p. 52.
73. Id. at 7.
74. Rollo, pp. 4-5.
75. People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
76. Id.
77. Id. at 81.
78. Id.
79. Id. at 99.
80. People v. Bumanglag, G.R. No. 228584, August 19, 2019 <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs//1/65627> [Per J. Lazaro-Javier, Second Division].
81. People v. De Guzman, 299 Phil. 849, 854 (2014) [Per J. Puno, Second Division].
82. 624 Phil. 289, 311 (2010) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
83. Id.