FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252568. November 11, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. GIL EBREO y CUETO ALIAS "OKLOY", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated November 11, 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252568 — People of the Philippines v. Gil Ebreo y Cueto alias "Okloy"
The appeal utterly lacks merit.
Appellant waived his right to assail
On appellant Gil Ebreo y Cueto's (appellant) warrantless arrest, suffice it to state that any objection involving arrest or the procedure for acquiring jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before arraignment; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. 1 In other words, any defect in the arrest is deemed cured when the accused voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the trial court 2 and actively participates during the trial. 3
Here, appellant did not raise any objection to his warrantless arrest before he got arraigned. He, in fact, voluntarily submitted to the court's jurisdiction when he entered a plea of not guilty, and thereafter, actively participated in the trial. As it was, his present challenge against his warrantless arrest came too late in the day as he raised it only for the first time on appeal before the Court of Appeals. This belated stance certainly cannot undo his waiver and the consequent proceedings that took place below.
The failure of the accused though to timely object to the illegality of his arrest does not preclude him or her from questioning the admissibility of the evidence seized as an incident of the warrantless arrest. 4 For jurisdiction over the person of the accused and the constitutional inadmissibility of evidence are separate and mutually exclusive consequences of an illegal arrest. 5
Yet we agree with the Office of the Solicitor General that the three (3) plastic sachets of shabu are admissible in evidence. Appellant's acquittal of the charge of violation of the Helmet Law does not bear upon the admissibility of the drug items. For these items were seized in accordance with the plain view doctrine, not by virtue of a search consequent to a warrantless arrest for violation of the Helmet Law.
The plain view doctrine applies when the following requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he or she can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he or she observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure. The object must be open to eye and hand, and its discovery inadvertent. 6
Here, Police Officer 2 Richie Ascalon (PO2 Ascalon) had a prior justification to look into appellant's motorcycle compartment — he flagged down appellant for not wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle at the Oplan Sita checkpoint in Barangay Balagtas. On asking appellant for the Official Receipt/Certificate of Registration (OR/CR) of his motorcycle, appellant opened the compartment to retrieve it. Thereupon, PO2 Ascalon inadvertently saw the three (3) plastic sachets inside the compartment. The fact that three (3) sachets contained white crystalline substance made it immediately apparent to PO2 Ascalon that these items may be evidence of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. caITAC
Similarly, in De Villa v. People, 7 the Court held that the seizure of the dangerous drugs was valid as the items were in plain view. There, appellant was likewise accosted by police officers during a checkpoint operation for not wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle. When asked for his registration papers, appellant opened the utility box of his motorcycle. Thereupon, the arresting officers saw four (4) plastic sachets of shabu in plain view, warranting appellant's arrest:
In this case, all the elements of the plain view doctrine were established.
First, the police officers were conducting a routine checkpoint when they flagged down the accused on board his motorcycle. The police officers noticed that the accused, as abovementioned, was committing several traffic infractions, thus the police officers had a prior justification for their act of flagging down the accused and their subsequent intrusion. Second, upon asking the accused for his registration papers, the accused opened his utility box, and the two (2) sachets of shabu were plainly visible to the police officers. The discovery of the sachets was inadvertent and the illicit items were immediately apparent. Lastly, PO2 Hamilton Salanguit (PO2 Salanguit) confiscated the sachets containing white crystalline substance since it appeared that the same could be evidence of a crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure.
At this juncture, it is important to emphasize that the seizure of these pieces of evidence in plain view is what justified the subsequent searches and the arrest of Danilo. If not for the said plastic sachets, there would have been no valid reason to search or frisk Danilo as his traffic violations were punishable only by fine. His traffic violations per se did not justify a search incidental to a lawful arrest as there was as yet no lawful arrest to speak of. However, with the discovery of the two plastic sachets in the utility box, there arose a valid reason to properly arrest Danilo and conduct a search incidental to such lawful arrest. And true enough, they discovered two (2) more plastic sachets of shabu in the right pocket of Danilo's pants.
For emphasis, appellant's failure to wear a helmet was not the cause of his arrest. Rather, he was arrested in flagrante delicto when PO2 Ascalon saw three (3) plastic sachets, in plain view, inside the compartment of his (appellant) motorcycle. Thus, appellant's acquittal of the charge of violation of the helmet law is immaterial here.
Appellant is guilty of illegal
In cases of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), as amended, the prosecution must establish the following elements: (a) the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs; (b) such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of dangerous drugs. 8
The crime is mala prohibitum, as such, criminal intent is not an essential element. The prosecution, however, must prove that the accused had the intent to possess (animus possidendi). Possession, under the law, includes not only actual possession, but also constructive possession. Actual possession exists when the drug is in the immediate physical possession or control of the accused. Constructive possession, on the other hand, exists when the drug is under the dominion and control of the accused or when he has the right to exercise dominion and control over the place where it is found. 9 Too, ownership of the dangerous drugs is inconsequential. The burden of proof is upon the accused to prove that they have a permit or clearance to possess the dangerous drugs. 10
Here, the prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt the presence of these elements:
First. Appellant was in possession of dangerous drugs. PO2 Ascalon saw the three (3) plastic sachets in appellant's motorcycle compartment. 11 Later on, the substance in these plastic sachets tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. 12
In Hoi Heng Un v. People, 13 the Court convicted petitioner of illegal possession of dangerous drugs not only for the two (2) bags of benzphetamine hydrochloride which he was about to dispose, but also for the seven (7) other bags in the compartment of the Nissan Cefiro he was driving. The Court held that since petitioner was driving the car by himself, only he was in constructive possession of the dangerous drugs. ICHDca
Second. Appellant's possession was clearly illegal because he could not present any proof or justification that he had lawful authority to possess the same.
Third. Appellant was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of dangerous drugs since the same were in his motorcycle compartment together with his motorcycle documents. To reiterate, mere possession of a prohibited drug constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of any satisfactory explanation. 14
Hence, the prosecution had adequately established the elements of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165.
The chain of custody was preserved
In drug related cases, the State bears the burden not only of proving the elements of the offense but also the corpus delicti itself. 15 The dangerous drug seized from an accused constitutes such corpus delicti. It is, thus, imperative for the prosecution to establish that the identity and integrity of the dangerous drug were duly preserved in order to sustain a verdict of conviction. 16 It must prove that the dangerous drug seized from the accused is indeed the substance offered in court with the same unshakeable accuracy required to sustain a finding of guilt. 17
Appellant was indicted for illegal possession of dangerous drugs allegedly committed on June 5, 2015. Thus, the applicable law is RA 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640 18 (RA 10640). Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended, prescribes the standard in preserving the corpus delicti in illegal drug cases, to wit:
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 team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the persons 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 National Prosecution Service or the media 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, finally, That noncompliance of 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 and custody over said items." (Emphasis supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640 further mandates:
Section 1. Implementing Guidelines. — 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:
A. Marking, Inventory and Photograph; Chain of Custody Implementing Paragraph "a" of the IRR.
A.1. The apprehending or seizing officer having initial custody and control of the seized or confiscated dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, mark, inventory and photograph the same in the following manner:
A.1.1. The marking, physical inventory and photograph of the seized/confiscated items shall be conducted where the search warrant is served.
A.1.2. The marking is the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the item/s seized.
A.1.3. In warrantless seizures, the marking of the seized items in the presence of the violator shall be done immediately at the place where the drugs were seized or at the nearest police station or nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable. The physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted in the same nearest police station or nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable.
xxx xxx xxx
A.1.5. The physical inventory and photograph of the seized/confiscated items shall be done in the presence of the suspect or his representative or counsel, with elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media, who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory of the seized or confiscated items and be given copy thereof. In case of their refusal to sign, it shall be stated "refused to sign" above their names in the certificate of inventory of the apprehending or seizing officer.
xxx xxx xxx
A.1.9. Noncompliance, under justifiable grounds, with the requirements of Section 21(1) of RA No. 9165, as amended, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over the items provided the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team.
Generally, there are four (4) links in the chain of custody of the seized illegal drug: (i) its seizure and marking, if practicable, from the accused, by the apprehending officer; (ii) its turnover by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (iii) its turnover by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist for examination; and, (iv) its turnover by the forensic chemist to the court. 19
The first link refers to the seizure and marking which must be done immediately at the place of the arrest. It, too, includes the physical inventory and taking of photograph of the seized items which should be done in the presence of the accused or his/her representative or counsel, together with an elected public official and a representative of the Department of Justice (DOJ) or the media. TCAScE
In People v. Castillo, 20 the Court explained the importance of immediately marking the corpus delicti after seizure:
In People v. Saunar, this Court discussed the purpose of marking and emphasized that it is a separate requirement from inventorying and photographing:
Although the requirement of "marking" is not found in Republic Act No. 9165, its significance lies in ensuring the authenticity of the corpus delicti. In People v. Dahil:
. . . in proving the chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related items immediately after they have been seized from the accused. "Marking" means the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the items seized. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link; hence, it is vital that the seized contraband be immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings, thus, preventing switching, planting or contamination of evidence. (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
Here, at the moment of seizure, PO2 Ascalon immediately marked the plastic sachets with "RDA 1," "RDA 2," and "RDA 3" right at the place of arrest. Verily, the specimens were segregated from all other similar or related evidence, thus, ensuring that they were easily identifiable as the corpus delicti in this case.
As for the inventory and photograph requirements, Senior Police Officer 2 Pepito Reyes Adelantar (SPO2 Adelantar) went to fetch DOJ Representative Rodel Espina (Espina) while the other police officers were photographing and marking the plastic sachets. He successfully brought Espina to the Barangay Hall where all the other required witnesses — the appellant and Barangay Councilor Charity Flores were already waiting. They were all present for the signing of the Certificate of Inventory. 21
Appellant, though, argues that there was no valid marking because PO2 Ascalon did not place his signature and the date of seizure on the sachet. We are not persuaded. To repeat, "marking, which is the affixing on the dangerous drugs or related items by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his initials or signature or other identifying signs, should be made in the presence of the apprehended violator immediately upon arrest." 22 Verily, as long as the apprehending officer makes a mark which segregates the seized items from all other similar or related evidence, it is sufficient compliance with the first link of the chain of custody rule.
The Court notes though that the taking of photographs was done without the presence of the insulating witnesses. Yet, the saving clause under the IRR of RA 9165, as amended, ordains that non-compliance with the prescribed requirement shall not invalidate the seizure and custody of the items provided that such non-compliance is justified and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved by the apprehending officers. 23 In this case, the saving clause came into play for the prosecution successfully demonstrated that the police officers' non-compliance with the prescribed procedure was justified and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were duly preserved.
We reckon with our ruling in San Jose v. People24 where the accused was likewise found guilty of illegal possession of dangerous drugs seized at a checkpoint. There, the Court upheld the verdict of conviction although the police officers were unable to secure the presence of the required witnesses, thus: cTDaEH
With regard to petitioner's argument that the chain of custody was not complied with, the Court likewise upholds the CA when it held that there was substantial compliance with the same.
xxx xxx xxx
To recall, this case started with a checkpoint in front of the Cardona Police Station where petitioner was caught in flagrante delicto possessing a sachet of shabu. There was no buy-bust operation conducted by the police officers but a mere routine check. This explains the absence of a representative from the media and the Department of Justice.
The Court agrees with the CA that the rule on chain of custody was substantially complied with. PO1 Mendoza seized the sachet of shabu from petitioner inside the jeepney and immediately proceeded to the Cardona Police Station right in front of the checkpoint. There, PO1 Mendoza marked the sachet in the presence of the petitioner and an elected barangay official. Photographs were taken and the physical inventory conducted. Thereafter, PO1 Mendoza forwarded the seized sachet to the Rizal Provincial Crime Laboratory where it was personally received by Police Senior Inspector Beaune Villaraza as evidenced by the stamp mark receipt on the Request for Laboratory Examination. In Chemical Report No. D-502-12, it revealed that the sachet tested positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. The sachet of shabu was subsequently offered in evidence where PO1 Mendoza positively identified the same and explained the markings on it. In view of the foregoing circumstances, the Court holds that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized sachet of shabu were duly preserved. x x x (Emphasis added)
Indeed, the Court does not lose sight of the fact that under various field conditions, compliance with the requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165 may not always be possible. Thus, while the presence of all these witnesses are ordinarily required, noncompliance is excusable when the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. 25
Here, the Court excuses the police officers for not immediately securing the presence of the insulating witnesses because appellant was arrested and searched at a checkpoint, not during a buy-bust operation. Besides, the presence of both an elected public official and a DOJ representative was eventually secured in time for the conduct of the inventory at the barangay hall. Indeed, earnest efforts were made by the police officers to secure a representative from the DOJ or the media, notwithstanding the circumstances of appellant's arrest, and they succeeded in securing one. At any rate, the Court keenly notes that the arresting officers here were likewise able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items which were duly marked and photographed at the place of arrest, and inventoried in front of an elected official and representative from the DOJ at the barangay hall.
The Court further notes that though the marking and photographing were done at the place of arrest, the inventory was thereafter done at the Barangay Hall of Barangay Balagtas, Batangas City in the presence of the insulating witnesses. RA 10640 incorporated the provision in RA 9165's IRR allowing for the conduct of physical inventory and photographing "at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable." The general rule is that such provision does not give the buy-bust team carte blanche to choose where to conduct the physical inventory. Still, this provision is subject to the saving clause.
In People v. Galang, 26 the Court acquitted Arnulfo Galang of illegal sale of dangerous drugs because the specimen was not marked at the place of arrest and the inventory was conducted at the barangay hall without any of the insulating witnesses. In People v. Primo, 27 Virgilio Primo was acquitted of both illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs primarily because only a barangay official witnessed the inventory and not solely because the marking and inventory were done at the barangay hall. Lastly, in People v. Caole, 28 Agustin Caole was acquitted of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs not only because the marking and inventory were done at the barangay hall but also because of the 'absence of representatives from the DOJ and the media during the conduct of the inventory.'
In all these cases, the accused were acquitted by virtue of glaring and inexcusable breaches of the chain of custody rule and not simply because the inventory was done at the barangay hall per se. These cases demonstrate that substantial compliance with the chain of custody rule will not suffice if the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti have been compromised. Yet, in People v. Reyes, 29 the Court sustained the conviction of Raemlito Reyes for illegal sale of dangerous drugs even though there was only substantial compliance with the chain of custody rule because the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were still preserved, thus:
While, as a rule, Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 should be strictly complied with, we have allowed deviation from the prescribed procedure provided that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the drugs itself is preserved. We have ruled that the law does not envision exact and scientific compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. We only require, at least, that the identity of the drugs seized be proven with moral certainty, and that the chain of custody remain unbroken. Procedural infractions does (sic) not necessarily mean that the identity of the seized drugs has been compromised.
The records clearly show an unbroken chain of custody from the time the sachets of marijuana were confiscated until they were presented in court. Reyes sold the three (3) sachets of marijuana to the asset. During the arrest, the subject items were then turned over to PO3 Aranza who marked them at the crime scene. PO3 Aranza, after placing the markings, gave the confiscated items to PO3 De Chavez. Upon arriving at the barangay hall, PO3 De Chavez conducted an inventory of the items in the presence of Reyes and the barangay officials. Thereafter, they went to the police station where PO3 De Chavez conducted another inventory before presenting the drugs to the DOJ representative. PO3 De Chavez then submitted the drugs for laboratory examination to the Batangas Provincial Crime Laboratory. The drugs were finally presented in court and identified by all the police officers based on the markings they had made.
Verily, the fact that an inventory is conducted at a barangay hall cannot be the lone basis of a verdict of acquittal, especially when the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti have been duly preserved. cSaATC
Anent the second link, the prosecution proved that PO2 Ascalon was in custody of the seized plastic sachets after marking them. Upon arrival at the Barangay Hall, he turned them over to SPO2 Adelantar, the investigator. 30
As for the third link, SPO2 Adelantar prepared the Spot Report, Request for Laboratory Examination, Request for Drug Test, Booking Sheet, and Arrest Report. Too, he brought appellant for drug testing and the specimens for laboratory examination at the Batangas Provincial Crime Laboratory Office. These were received by Senior Police Officer 4 Jesus Agustin (SPO4 Agustin), the duty receiving officer. Immediately, SPO4 Augustin turned over the specimens to Police Senior Inspector Herminia Llacuna (PSI Llacuna), the forensic chemist. 31
As for the fourth and final link, PSI Llacuna, after conducting the qualitative examination, and sealing and marking the specimens, delivered the same to Police Officer 2 Joel Barcelona (PO2 Barcelona), the evidence custodian. Around two o'clock in the afternoon of November 6, 2015, PO2 Barcelona withdrew the specimen and handed them over to Marina Laureta, the Officer-in-Charge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Batangas City. 32
In sum, the prosecution succeeded in proving all the links in the chain of custody, including its proper handling and preservation at every stage. All told, the Court of Appeals did not err when it affirmed the verdict of conviction for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, as amended.
Penalty
Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 as amended 33 provides that the penalty for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, if the quantity is five (5) grams or more but less than ten (10) grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, is imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment, and a fine ranging from P400,000.00 to P500,000.00. Thus, the courts below correctly sentenced appellant to twenty (20) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to twenty-five (25) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P400,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in the event of insolvency.
In People v. Obias, 34 the Court similarly found appellant therein guilty of illegal possession of 5.921 grams of shabu and sentenced him to imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to thirty (30) years, as maximum, and a fine of P400,000.00, in accordance with the Indeterminate Sentence Law, viz.:
Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 provides that the penalty for illegal possession of dangerous drugs is imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are five (5) grams or more but less than ten (10) grams of x x x methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu."
Since appellant was found to have been in illegal possession of 5.921 grams of shabu, appellant should have been meted the penalty of imprisonment ranging from twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment and a fine ranging from P400,000.00 to P500,000.00. As such, the penalty of twenty (20) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to thirty (30) years, as maximum, and a fine of P400,000.00, imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the CA, is proper. As expounded by J. Peralta in his Concurring Opinion, "any period in excess of twenty [20] years [and one (1) day] is within the range of the penalty." (Emphasis supplied)
So must it be.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated October 30, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10958 is AFFIRMED.
Appellant Gil Ebreo y Cueto alias "Okloy" is found GUILTY of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 as amended, and is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of twenty (20) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to twenty-five (25) years, as maximum. He is further ORDERED to pay a FINE of P400,000.00.
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.Lapi v. People, G.R. No. 210731, February 13, 2019.
2. See People v. Alunday, 586 Phil. 120, 133 (2008).
3. See People v. Bacla-An, 445 Phil. 729, 748 (2003).
4. See Homar v. People, 768 Phil. 195, 208 (2015).
5.Veridiano v. People, 810 Phil. 642, 654 (2017).
6.Dominguez v. People, G.R. No. 235898, March 13, 2019.
7.De Villa v. People, G.R. No. 224039, September 11, 2019.
8.People v. Villojan, G.R. No. 239635, July 22, 2019.
9.People v. Quijano, G.R. No. 247558, February 19, 2020.
10.Arcilla v. Court of Appeals, 463 Phil. 914, 926 (2003).
11.Rollo, p. 4.
12.Id. at 6.
13. G.R. No. 253046, February 3, 2021.
14.Supra note 9.
15.People v. Calates, 829 Phil. 262, 269 (2018).
16.Calahi v. People, 820 Phil. 886, 894 (2017), citing People v. Casacop, 778 Phil. 369, 376 (2016), and Zafra v. People, 686 Phil. 1095, 1108 (2012).
17.People v. Omamos, G.R. No. 223036, July 10, 2019.
18. 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."
19.People v. De Leon, G.R. No. 227867, June 26, 2019.
20. G.R. No. 238339, August 07, 2019.
21.Rollo, p. 5.
22.Villasana v. People, G.R. No. 209078, September 04, 2019.
23.People v. Frias, G.R. No. 234686, June 10, 2019.
24.San Jose v. People, G.R. No. 236336, April 23, 2018.
25.People v. Maralit, 838 Phil. 191, 208 (2018).
26. G.R. No. 244834, June 21, 2021.
27. G.R. No. 238837, September 7, 2020.
28. G.R. No. 232486, March 4, 2020.
29. G.R. No. 208721, September 14, 2016.
30.Rollo, p. 5.
31. CA rollo, p. 64.
32.Id. at 65.
33. Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. — x x x Otherwise, if the quantity is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows: x x x (b) Imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are five (5) grams or more but less than ten (10) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu," or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy," PMA, LSD, 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 x x x.
34. G.R. No. 222187, March 25, 2019.