FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 249860. June 30, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. MANUEL DISTOR y RAMIREZ, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 30, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 249860 (People of the Philippines v. Manuel Distor y Ramirez).
This is an appeal by certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the February 14, 2019 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 10298. The CA affirmed the October 4, 2017 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, Branch 48 (RTC), finding Manuel Distor y Ramirez (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," and acquitting him of violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165.
Antecedents
Appellant was charged with violation of Secs. 11 and 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 under two (2) separate Informations which read:
CRIM. CASE NO. U-20258
That on or about 5:45 o'clock in the morning of December 8, 2014 at Brgy. Cablong, Pozorrubio, Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, control and custody one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (SHABU), a dangerous drugs, weighing 0.118 gram.
CONTRARY to Art. II, Sec. 11 of Republic Act 9165, otherwise known as "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002." 3
CRIM. CASE NO. U-20259
That on or about 5:45 o'clock in the morning of December 8, 2014 at Brgy. Cablong, Pozorrubio, Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (SHABU), a dangerous drugs, weighing 0.082 gram and 0.084 gram, respectively[,] with a total weight of 0.166 gram.
CONTRARY to Article II, Sec. 5 of Republic Act 9165, otherwise known as "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002." 4
During arraignment on January 28, 2015, appellant pleaded "not guilty" to the crimes as charged. 5 Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
On December 7, 2014, Police Officer III Jesus Andaya (PO3 Andaya), Police Officer III Zaldy Manzano (PO3 Manzano), Police Officer II Ernesto Biala (PO2 Biala), Police Officer II Bryan Dale Ocumen (PO2 Ocumen), Police Officer I Ave Gail Espejo (PO1 Espejo) and PO1 Jaypee Vinluan (PO1 Vinluan), members of the Municipal Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Group (MAID-SOTG), were on duty at the Pozorrubio Police Station, Pozorrubio, Pangasinan. At about 8:00 a.m., their station received information from their confidential informant (CI) that appellant was engaged in illegal activities at Brgy. Cablong, Pozorrubio, Pangasinan. 6
Thereafter, Police Chief Inspector Ryan Lopez Manongdo (PCI Manongdo) formed a buy-bust team composed of PO1 Vinluan as the poseur-buyer and PO1 Espejo as the searcher. PO2 Biala and PO2 Ocumen were tasked as arresting officers. The agreed buy-bust site was at the Royal Blood Resort in Brgy. Cablong, Pozorrubio, Pangasinan. PO1 Vinluan also received from their OIC a P1,000.00-bill with serial number KU130105 to be used as buy-bust money, which he marked with his initials "JGV." 7
On December 8, 2014, at about 3:00 a.m., PO3 Andaya coordinated with the PDEA Region 1 and Brgy. Officials of Cablong, Pozorrubio, Pangasinan. Thereafter, the team proceeded to the place of engagement. After more than two hours of waiting, appellant arrived at the venue on board a motorcycle. Forthwith, the CI approached him and introduced PO1 Vinluan as a buyer. After a brief conversation, the sale was consummated with PO1 Vinluan tendering the P1,000.00 marked money to appellant who, in turn, handed him two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets of shabu. 8
Soon after, PO1 Vinluan held appellant's hand and introduced himself as a police officer in a loud voice and within hearing distance of the back-up operatives, which was the pre-arranged signal signifying consummation of the sale. Upon hearing PO1 Vinluan, the back-up operatives immediately ran towards them and arrested appellant. 9 After apprising him of his constitutional rights, PO1 Espejo conducted a body search on appellant which resulted in the recovery of one (1) heat-sealed sachet of shabu and the marked buy-bust money. The seized items were then marked by PO1 Vinluan and PO1 Espejo, respectively, and inventoried by PO3 Alberto P. Quiros in the presence of Punong Barangay Lester Bermudez (Punong Barangay Bermudez). The two (2) heat-sealed plastic sachets of shabu which PO1 Vinluan purchased from appellant were personally marked with PO1 Vinluan's initials, "JGV." 10
Subsequently, the buy-bust team brought appellant and the seized items to the MAID-SOTG office where the police prepared the pertinent documents for custodial investigation and transmittal of the seized items for laboratory examination. PO1 Vinluan and PO1 Espejo personally turned over the seized items to Police Chief Inspector Myrna Todeño (PCI Todeño), Forensic Chemist of the PNP Crime Laboratory Office in Lingayen, Pangasinan. She conducted a laboratory examination of the seized sachets of shabu and a physical examination of appellant. 11
After examination, PCI Todeño issued Chemistry Report No. D-515-2014L which found the seized items positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. She then turned over the seized items to the evidence custodian, PO3 Elmer Manuel, of the PNP Crime Laboratory, Lingayen for safekeeping. 12
Version of the Defense
Appellant testified that on December 8, 2014, at around 5:00 a.m., he received a phone call from his friend, a certain "Michael Ilasen" — an employee of Royal Blood Resort at Brgy. Cablong, Pozorrubio, Pangasinan, telling him to go to Royal Blood Resort because he had a "new" girl for him. Upon arrival at the resort, he was met by the hotel owner who told him to proceed to Room Number 3. As he was about to knock on the door of Room Number 3, policemen suddenly arrived, poked a gun at him, and ordered him to raise his hands. After about five (5) minutes, his friend, Michael Ilasen, together with a police officer, came out of Room Number 3. Thereafter, he was handcuffed, made to lie on the ground face down, and was searched. Afterwards, he was made to sit in front of a table where things allegedly seized from him were placed. He was also made to point at those things while being photographed. Subsequently, he was brought to the Pozorrubio Police Station where he was detained. 13
Judgment of the RTC
In its October 4, 2017 Decision, 14 the RTC found appellant guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs in Criminal Case No. U-20258. It held that the prosecution was able to establish the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. The RTC disregarded appellant's denial for being self-serving. However, in Criminal Case No. U-20259, the RTC dismissed the case against appellant and held that the possession of illegal drugs is inherent in the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, thus, conviction for both offenses is not feasible. The fallo reads:
WHEREFORE, finding the accused Manuel Distor y Ramirez guilty of the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs defined and penalized under Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. 9165 otherwise known as Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 in Criminal Case No. U-20258, the court hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Php500,000.00.
The case for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs filed against said accused in Criminal Case No. U-20259 is hereby dismissed.
The prohibited drugs presented in court as evidence are ordered forfeited in favor of the government and shall be forwarded to the office of PDEA for proper disposition.
Accused Manuel Distor y Ramirez having been convicted is hereby ordered committed to the National Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City, Philippines, for the service of his sentence and in the meanwhile he is hereby ordered detained at the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, pending his transfer to the National Bilibid Prison.
SO ORDERED.15
Decision of the CA
In its February 14, 2019 Decision, 16 the CA affirmed appellant's conviction. It ruled that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. It opined that the absence of a representative from the media and the DOJ at the time the evidence was being inventoried, marked, and photographed did not affect the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. It held that the police officers were able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items from the moment the items were taken from appellant until they were presented in court as evidence. The fallo reads:
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the Decision dated October 4, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 48 of Urdaneta City, Pangasinan in Crim. Case No. U-20259 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.17
Hence, this appeal.
Issues
Appellant raised the following errors:
I.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF ILLEGAL SALE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PRESENT A COMPLETE PICTURE DETAILING THE ALLEGED BUY-BUST OPERATION.
II.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF ILLEGAL SALE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE THE INTEGRITY AND IDENTITY OF THE ALLEGEDLY SEIZED ITEMS.
III.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF ILLEGAL SALE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS WHEN IT RELIED ON THE WEAKNESS OF THE DEFENSE. 18
In its January 8, 2020 Resolution, 19 the Court required the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired. In its June 1, 2020 Manifestation, 20 the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) manifested that it would no longer file a supplemental brief because its appellee's brief had already discussed the propriety of appellant's conviction of violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. In his June 3, 2020 Manifestation in lieu of Supplemental Brief, 21 appellant averred that he would no longer file a supplemental brief considering that he had thoroughly discussed his defense in his appellant's brief.
In his Appellant's Brief 22 before the CA, appellant claims that the evidence about the alleged buy-bust operation is incomplete because the prosecution failed to present the CI who had sole knowledge of how the illegal sale transpired. He also points out that the prosecution failed to prove the identity of the corpus delicti; that the chain of custody rule was not complied with due to the absence of a representative from the media or the National Prosecution Service (NPS) during the inventory of evidence; and that the marking of the allegedly seized drug did not comply with the 2014 Revised PNP Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operation and Investigation. He also claims that the police officers' non-use of the evidence bag rendered the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti doubtful. Lastly, he argues that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty in favor of the police officers does not apply in this case. 23
In its Appellee's Brief 24 before the CA, the OSG urges this Court to affirm the challenged decision of the RTC because the prosecution had duly proved all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The OSG insists that the chain of custody rule was complied with and that the police officers were able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. The OSG further claims that the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are more worthy of faith and credence than appellant's defense of denial. 25
The Court's Ruling
The Court finds the appeal meritorious.
To sustain a conviction for the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the necessary elements are: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. 26 It is essential that a transaction or sale be proved to have actually taken place coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of the corpus delicti. 27 The corpus delicti in cases involving dangerous drugs is the presentation of the dangerous drug itself and its offer as evidence.
It is essential that the identity of the seized drug be established with moral certainty, and it must be proven with exactitude that the substance bought during the buy-bust operation is exactly the same substance offered in evidence before the court. 28 This requirement is known as the chain of custody rule under R.A. No. 9165 created to safeguard doubts concerning the identity of the seized drugs. 29
Chain of custody means the duly recorded, authorized movements, and custody of the seized drugs at each state, from the moment of confiscation to the receipt in the forensic laboratory for examination until it is presented to the court. 30
As part of the chain of custody procedure, the law requires that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation of the same. 31 The law further requires that the said inventory and photography be done 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: (a) if prior to the amendment of R.A. No. 9165 by R.A. No. 10640, 32 a representative from the media AND the DOJ, and any elected public official; 33 or (b) if after the amendment of R.A. No. 9165 by R.A. No. 10640, an elected public official and a representative of the NPS 34OR the media. 35 The law requires the presence of these witnesses primarily "to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence." 36
In the instant case, since the offense charged was committed on December 8, 2014, the provisions of Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, shall apply. Thus, the three witnesses mandated by law to be present during the inventory and taking of photographs must be complied with.
The apprehending team's
Here, the buy-bust team committed several patent procedural lapses in the conduct of the seizure and handling of the seized drug — which thus created reasonable doubt as to the identity and integrity of the drug and, consequently, reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused. 37
At the outset, it must be pointed out that the Certificate of Inventory that was produced by the prosecution was irregularly executed. Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 10640 requires that the copies of the inventory be signed by the following persons: the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the NPS or the media.
The Receipt/Inventory of Property/ies Seized 38 itself reveals that the document was not signed by the appellant or by his counsel or representative. Upon perusal of the records of the instant case, the prosecution did not acknowledge such defect. Nor did the prosecution provide any explanation whatsoever as to why appellant was not able to sign the Certificate of Inventory.
Moreover, the Court notes that the marking of the plastic sachets allegedly recovered was irregularly done. It was not compliant with paragraph 2.35, Sec. 2-6 of the Revised PNP Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operation and Investigation, which provides:
xxx xxx xxx
2.35 The Seizing Officer must mark the evidence with his initials indicating therein the date, time and place where the evidence was found/recovered or seized.
xxx xxx xxx 39
In the instant case, as irrefutably revealed by the photographs of the plastic sachets allegedly retrieved from appellant, only the initials of the seizing officer were inscribed on the specimens. The date, time, and place of the buy-bust operation were not indicated in the markings, in clear contravention of the PNP's own set of procedures for the conduct of its operations.
Anent the insulating witnesses, it is obvious from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses that only Punong Barangay Bermudez was present at the time of inventory of the seized items. There was no representative from the NPS or the media. The CA even acknowledged the absence of the required witnesses and the prosecution's failure to justify the same but, nevertheless, opined that the integrity of the seized items was duly preserved.
The Court does not agree.
The absence of the aforementioned 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 must therefore be adduced. 40 In the absence of the witnesses required by law during the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items, the Court emphasized in People v. Lim41 that —
It must be alleged and proved that the presence of the three witnesses (now two witnesses under [R.A. No. 10640]) to the physical inventory and photograph of the illegal drug seized was not obtained due to reason/s such as:
(1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf; (3) the elected official themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ or media representative and an elected public official within the period required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code proved futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or (5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations, which often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before the offenders could escape. 42
In this case, however, the prosecution offered no justification as to the absence of a representative from the media or the NPS. The prosecution did not even recognize their procedural lapses or give any plausible explanation on why the apprehending team did not conduct the marking, inventory, and taking of photographs of the seized evidence in the presence of a media or NPS representative. Neither was it proven by the prosecution that the police officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of the required witnesses during that time.
By failing to follow even the basic witness requirement under Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 10640, the police officers cannot be presumed to have regularly exercised their duties during the buy-bust operation. The blatant violations committed by police officers cannot be countenanced. 43 Otherwise, the Court will be giving the law enforcers a license to abuse their power and authority, defeating the purpose of the law, violating human rights, and eroding the justice system in this country. 44
In People v. Zheng Bai Hui, 45 the Court held that it will not presume to set an a priori basis of what detailed acts police authorities might credibly undertake and carry out in their entrapment operations. 46 However, given the police operational procedures and the fact that a buy-bust is a planned operation, it strains credulity why the buy-bust team could not have ensured the presence of the required witnesses pursuant to Sec. 21, or at the very least marked, photographed, and inventoried the seized items according to the procedures in their own operations manual.
It must be pointed out, however, that contrary to appellant' s claim, the non-presentation of the CI as prosecution witness and the failure of the police officers to use an evidence bag is not fatal to the prosecution's case. The presentation of an informant as a witness is not regarded as indispensable to the success of a prosecution of a drug-dealing accused. As a rule, the informant is not presented in court for security reasons, in view of the need to protect the informant from the retaliation of the culprit arrested through his efforts. Thereby, the confidentiality of the informant's identity is protected in deference to his invaluable services to law enforcement. 47 Similarly, appellant's contention as to the use of [an] evidence bag is immaterial since the use of such bag is not included as one of the requisites under Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 and the rule on the chain of custody of evidence. 48
The prosecution failed to
Aside from the requirement of properly justifying the lack of insulating witnesses in the inventory and photography of the seized items, the prosecution must also prove the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items. In People v. Hementiza, 49 the Court enumerated the links that the prosecution must establish in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation to be as follows: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court. 50
In this case, aside from noncompliance with the mandatory rules in the inventory and photography of the seized items, the Court finds that the fourth link in the chain of custody was not clearly established by the prosecution.
The last link involves the submission of the seized drugs by the forensic chemist to the court when presented as evidence in the criminal case. 51 In this case, PCI Todeño failed to testify on how the illegal drugs were safeguarded, if at all, after she received the same and following her qualitative examination thereof, and prior to her appearance in court. Absent any testimony on the management, storage, and preservation of the illegal drugs allegedly seized here after their qualitative examination, the fourth link in the chain of custody could not be reasonably established. 52 This casts serious doubts on the identity and the integrity of the corpus delicti. In Mallillin v. People, 53 the Court explained:
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. 54
In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that there was no proper inventory, marking, and taking of photographs of the seized items due to the lack of the insulating witnesses. Moreover, there were significant gaps in the chain of custody to establish the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. Given the procedural lapses, serious uncertainty hangs over the identification of corpus delicti that the prosecution introduced into evidence. 55 Consequently, the prosecution's failure to justify such lapses entitles the accused to an acquittal based on reasonable doubt. 56
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is GRANTED. The February 14, 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 10298, which affirmed the October 4, 2017 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, Branch 48, in Criminal Case No. U-20259, finding appellant Manuel Distor y Ramirez GUILTY of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant Manuel Distor y Ramirez is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ORDERED to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE the appellant from detention, unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason, and to INFORM this Court of his action hereon within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-14; penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz with Associate Justice Pedro B. Corales and Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos, concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 50-58; penned by Presiding Judge Gonzalo P. Marata.
3.Id. at 50.
4.Id. at 50-51.
5.Id. at 51.
6.Rollo, p. 5.
7.Id. at 5-6.
8.Id. at 6.
9.Id.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 6-7.
12.Id. at 7.
13.Id.
14. CA rollo, pp. 50-58.
15.Id. at 58.
16.Rollo, pp. 3-14.
17.Id. at 13.
18. CA rollo, p. 35.
19.Rollo, pp. 19-20.
20.Id. at 25-28.
21.Id. at 30-32.
22. CA rollo, pp. 33-48.
23.Id. at 40-47.
24.Id. at 64-89.
25.Id. at 74-88.
26.People v. Roble, 663 Phil. 147, 157 (2011).
27.Id.
28.People v. Alon-Alon, 791 Phil. 626, 634 (2016).
29.People v. Climaco, 687 Phil. 593, 609 (2012), citing People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 226 (2015).
30. Section 1 (b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002.
31.Matabilas v. People, G.R. No. 243615, November 11, 2019.
32. Entitled "An Act to Further Strengthen the Anti-Drug Campaign of the Government, Amending for the Purpose Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the 'Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.'" As the Court noted in People v. Gutierrez (see G.R. No. 236304, November 5, 2018) and Matabilas v. People (see G.R. No. 243615, November 11, 2019), R.A. No. 10640 was approved on July 15, 2014. Under Section 5 thereof, it shall "take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation." R.A. No. 10640 was published on July 23, 2014 in The Philippine Star (Vol. XXVIII, No. 359, Philippine Star Metro section, p. 21) and Manila Bulletin (Vol. 499, No. 23; World News section, p. 6). Thus, R.A. No. 10640 appears to have become effective on August 7, 2014.
33. See Sec. 21 (1) and (2), Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR.
34. Which falls under the DOJ. (See Sec. 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1275, entitled "Reorganizing the Prosecution Staff of the Department of Justice and the Offices of the Provincial and City Fiscals, Regionalizing the Prosecution Service, and Creating the National Prosecution Service" [April 11, 1978] and Section 3 of R.A. No. 10071, Entitled "An Act Strengthening and Rationalizing the National Prosecution Service" otherwise known as the "Prosecution Service Act of 2010" [lapsed into law on April 8, 2010]).
35. See Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640.
36. See Matabilas v. People, supra note 31.
37.People v. Santos, G.R. No. 218579, December 5, 2019 (Minute Resolution).
38. Records, p. 11.
39. Revised PNP Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operation and Investigation, September 2014.
40.People v. Baptista, G.R. No. 225783, August 20, 2018, 878 SCRA 124, citing People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024, 1052 (2012).
41. G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
42.Id.
43.People v. Cutamora, G.R. No. 233541, June 8, 2020.
44.Id.
45. 393 Phil. 68 (2000).
46.Id. at 133.
47.People v. Bartolome, 703 Phil. 148, 164 (2013).
48.Reyes v. People, G.R. No. 239583, August 15, 2018 (Minute Resolution).
49. 807 Phil. 1017 (2017), as cited in People v. Omamos, G.R. No. 223036, July 10, 2019, 908 SCRA 367.
50.Id. at 1030.
51.People v. Dahil, supra note 29, at 237.
52.People v. Ubungen, 836 Phil. 888, 902 (2018).
53. 576 Phil. 576 (2008).
54.Id. at 587.
55.People v. Bangcola, G.R. No. 237802, March 18, 2019, 897 SCRA 330, 356.
56.People v. Abdula, G.R. No. 212192, November 21, 2018, 886 SCRA 383, 413.