People v. Espiritu y Tenorio

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 254198. October 13, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.GERSON ESPIRITU y TENORIO ALIAS "HERSON," accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 13, 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC

"G.R. No. 254198 (People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee v. Gerson Espiritu y Tenorio alias "Herson," accused-appellant).

This is an Appeal 1 from the January 27, 2020 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12154. The CA affirmed the November 6, 2018 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court of Taguig City, Branch 153 (RTC), which found Gerson Espiritu y Tenorio alias "Herson"(accused-appellant) guilty of violating Section 5, 4 Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended by R.A. No. 10640. 5

Antecedents

Accused-appellant was charged with violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 in an Information 6 dated November 28, 2016, which reads:

That on or about the 23rd day of November 2016, in the City of Taguig, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law to sell any dangerous drug, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell, deliver and give away to a poseur[-]buyer, the amount of zero point forty two (0.42) gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly known as "shabu," a dangerous drug. In violation of the above-cited law.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

During arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. Trial ensued thereafter. 7

Version of the Prosecution

At around 10:00 a.m. of November 23, 2016, a confidential informant (CI) went to the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Group (SAID-SOTG) of the Taguig City Police Station, Taguig City, to report accused-appellant's drug-peddling activities within the vicinity of Carnation St., Barangay Wawa, Taguig City. The said information was relayed by the CI to Senior Police Officer I Joseph E. More (SPO1 More) in the presence of the other members of the SAID-SOTG including its team leader Police Chief Inspector Jerry Amindalan (PC/Insp. Amindalan). The CI further disclosed that accused-appellant sought the former's assistance in finding him buyers of shabu. 8

Acting on the said information, PC/Insp. Amindalan directed Senior Police Officer 1 Marevil P. Morte (SPO1 Morte) to coordinate with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) on their intended operation against accused-appellant. Consequently, SPO1 Morte prepared a Pre-Operation and Coordination Form with PDEA Control No. RO-NCR-10001-112016-0592. 9

Thereafter, a briefing among the members of the SAID-SOTG was conducted to set up a buy-bust operation against accused-appellant. SPO1 More was designated as poseur-buyer and was given buy-bust money worth P2,000.00 consisting of four (4) P500.00 bills. It was also agreed that the pre-arranged signal for the consummation of the buy-bust transaction was for the CI to go out of the place of transaction or for SPO1 More to make a missed call to Senior Police Officer I Fernando D. Gano (SPO1 Gano). Meanwhile, SPO1 Gano was assigned as the backup arresting officer. 10

At around 3:05 p.m. of November 23, 2016, the SAID-SOTG team led by PC/Insp. Amindalan together with the CI proceeded to Carnation St., Barangay Wawa, Taguig City. Upon arrival thereat, SPO1 More and the CI walked towards the house of accused-appellant. Meanwhile, the other members positioned themselves strategically more or less 20 meters away from accused-appellant's house. 11

Upon reaching accused-appellant's house, SPO1 More and the CI saw a man, later identified as herein accused-appellant, standing in front of a house at Interior 8, Carnation St., Barangay Wawa, Taguig City. The two approached him. Accused-appellant greeted the CI, who introduced SPO1 More as his friend who wanted to buy shabu from accused-appellant. Accused-appellant then invited the two men inside his house. While inside, SPO1 More was introduced by accused-appellant to his wife. Afterwards, they all went inside a room. 12

Thereafter, accused-appellant demanded from SPO1 More the payment for the shabu he ordered. SPO1 More then handed accused-appellant the P2,000.00 marked money. After receiving the money, accused-appellant took from his right pocket one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu. After the exchange, SPO1 More told accused-appellant that he needed to go to the comfort room to relieve himself. The comfort room was just outside the room where they transacted. In the comfort room, SPO1 More made a missed call to SPO1 Gano to alert the latter of the consummation of the buy-bust transaction. 13

Upon receipt of the signal from SPO1 More, SPO1 Gano and the other members of the SAID-SOTG rushed toward accused-appellant's house. When SPO1 More heard the arresting team entering accused-appellant's house, he immediately went back to the room, introduced himself as a police officer, and arrested accused-appellant and his wife. SPO1 More was assisted by SPO1 Gano and the other members of the buy-bust team in effecting the arrest. 14

Accused-appellant and his wife were then searched by SPO1 More who recovered from accused-appellant the buy-bust money and six (6) pieces of small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substances. On the other hand, an improvised glass tooter partially containing fluid was recovered from accused-appellant's wife. Immediately upon recovering the said items, SPO1 More proceeded to mark and prepare an inventory of the seized items. The marking and inventory were witnessed by Barangay Kagawad Rizalito Sta. Barbara (Barangay Kagawad Sta. Barbara). Thereafter, SPO1 More secured the seized items in his possession. The buy-bust team, together with accused-appellant and his wife, then proceeded back to their police station. 15

Upon their arrival at the police station, SPO1 More turned over the seized items to the investigator-on-case Senior Police Officer II Napoleon Tongco (SPO2 Tongco) who then delivered the items to Police Chief Inspector May Andrea A. Bonifacio (PCI Bonifacio) at the Southern Police District (SPD) Office Crime Laboratory, Lumang Pamantasan ng Makati, Malugay St., San Antonio, Makati City. PCI Bonifacio conducted the qualitative examination on the drug evidence delivered by SPO2 Tongco. The examination yielded positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. Thereafter PCI Bonifacio reported her findings in writing through her Chemistry Report No. D-2307-16. 16

Version of the defense

Accused-appellant vehemently denied the accusations against him and maintained that on November 23, 2016, at around 1:00 to 2:00 p.m., he was sleeping with his wife when, suddenly, somebody came knocking at the door and broke in. Several persons entered his house and asked him if he was Gerson Espiritu. After he answered in the affirmative, they told him to lie down on the floor and they handcuffed him. 17

The RTC Ruling

In its November 6, 2018 Decision, 18 the RTC found accused-appellant guilty of violating Sec. 5, Art. II of the R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this court finds accused Gerson Espiritu [y] Tenorio alias "Herson" GUILTY of the crime charged against him. Accordingly, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay the Fine of [P]500,000.00.

The Branch Clerk of this Court is directed to turn-over the seized items to the PDEA, for destruction in accordance with law.

SO ORDERED.19

The RTC held that the testimony of SPO1 More established the elements of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. Further, it held that accused-appellant's defense of denial failed to overcome the positive testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses and other evidence like the marked money and the sachet of shabu seized from him during the buy-bust operation. The RTC ruled that there was sufficient compliance with the requirements set forth under Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165. 20

Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA.

The CA Decision

In its January 27, 2020 Decision, 21 the CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC. The dispositive portion states:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision dated 6 November 2018 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 153, Taguig City is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.22

The CA held that the prosecution established the details of the buy-bust transaction that took place between SPO1 More and accused-appellant despite the non-presentation of the CI as a witness. 23 Likewise, the prosecution was able to show an unbroken chain of custody. Although the inventory was not witnessed by a member of the Department of Justice (DOJ), there was substantial compliance with Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 since it was witnessed by an elected barangay official. The CA held that the buy-bust team substantially complied with the requirements of the law on marking, photography, and inventory of the seized dangerous drugs. The receipt/inventory of property seized and the photographs taken confirm the compliance with the rules. Moreover, the integrity of the seized drugs was preserved. 24 The totality of the prosecution's evidence shows continuous whereabouts of the dangerous drugs from the time they were confiscated and tested in the crime laboratory until they were offered in evidence.

Hence, this appeal.

Issues

Accused-appellant raises the following grounds in support of his appeal:

I.

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO ESTABLISH THE CONDUCT OF THE ALLEGED ENTRAPMENT.

II.

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO ESTABLISH THE CORPUS DELICTI THEREOF AND AN UNBROKEN CHAIN OF CUSTODY.

III.

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN COVICTING n THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE POLICE OFFICERS' PALPABLE [NONCOMPLIANCE] WITH THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 21 (1), ARTICLE II OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, AS AMENDED. 25

On February 1, 2021, this Court issued a Resolution, 26 which notified the parties that they may file their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired. In its June 15, 2021 Manifestation and Motion (Re: Supplemental Brief), 27 the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) manifested that it would no longer file a supplemental brief considering that the guilt of accused-appellant was exhaustively discussed in its appellee's brief. In its June 16, 2021 Manifestation (In Lieu of a Supplemental Brief), 28 accused-appellant averred that he would no longer file a supplemental brief since he had sufficiently refuted all the arguments raised in the appellee's brief.

In his Appellant's Brief 29 filed before the CA, accused-appellant argues that the prosecution failed to establish the conduct of the purported entrapment operations. 30 Likewise, the prosecution failed to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the purported seized drugs. 31 Accused-appellant maintains that the buy-bust team failed to comply with the three-witness rule provided under Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165. 32 The prosecution's failure to provide a clear account of every link in the chain of custody, as to how and when exactly the seized illegal drugs were transferred and as to every person who touched the same, could be considered an irregularity surrounding the identity of the evidence actually seized and that which was presented in court. 33 Also, there were no media and DOJ representatives at the time of inventory. 34 Accused-appellant avers that the lower courts likewise erred in upholding the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties of the police officers and rejecting his defense of denial. 35

On the other hand, the OSG urges the Court to affirm accused-appellant's conviction for violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. It argues that the prosecution duly established the elements of the offense as charged. Moreover, it asserts that the prosecution was able to prove that there was an unbroken chain of custody from the time SPO1 More confiscated the drugs from accused-appellant, when he placed the markings thereon after accused-appellant's arrest, prepared the request, and turned over the same for laboratory examination, which yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The OSG concluded that the prosecution was able to prove that the integrity and identity of the seized drugs had been preserved. 36

The Court's Ruling

The Court grants the appeal.

The prosecution must prove the presence of the following elements to secure the conviction of a person accused of the crime of sale of prohibited drugs: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. 37 Furthermore, the prosecution bears the burden not only of proving the said elements, but also of proving the corpus delicti, the body of the crime. 38

Here, the dangerous drug itself is the very corpus delicti of the violation of the law prohibiting the illegal sale or possession of dangerous drugs. Consequently, the prosecution did not comply with the mandatory requirement of proving the corpus delicti when there were substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the seized drugs that raised doubts as to the authenticity of the drug evidence presented in court. As such, the duty to prove the corpus delicti of the illegal sale of dangerous drugs is as imperative as proving the elements of the crime itself.

The procedural safeguards cover the seizure, custody and disposition of the confiscated drugs. Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, provides:

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.

To emphasize, the necessity of preserving and maintaining the integrity and identity of the items recovered from an accused in drug cases is brought about by the very essence and characteristics of illegal narcotics. Illegal drugs by its nature are not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration, or substitution either by accident or otherwise. Thus, it is imperative that the prosecution remove all doubts as to the identity and integrity of the drugs, as any aspersions thereto engenders a belief that what may have been presented in court were not the same drugs recovered from the accused, or worse, if drugs had been really seized from the suspect. 39

The prosecution must be able to account for each link in the chain of custody over the dangerous drug from the moment of seizure up to its presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti. Thus, the apprehending officers should be able to show an unbroken chain of custody, as well as compliance with Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640.

In the case at bench, the Court finds that there were substantial gaps as to the requirements under the chain of custody as laid down by Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, and as amended by R.A. No. 10640.

The first link in the chain of custody which requires that: (1) the seized items be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation; and (2) the physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of (a) the accused or his/her representative or counsel, (b) an elected public official, (c) a representative from the media, and (d) a representative from the DOJ, all of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. 40

Here, the prosecution failed to comply with the required witnesses during the inventory.

To stress, R.A. No. 10640, 41 which amended Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and became effective on August 7, 2014, requires only three witnesses to be present during the inventory and taking of photographs of the seized evidence, namely: (a) the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel; (b) an elected public official; and (c) a representative of the National Prosecution Service (NPS)or the media. 42

Since the offenses charged were committed on November 23, 2016, the provisions of R.A. No. 10640 are applicable. The three witnesses mandated by law to be present during the inventory and taking of photographs must be complied with.

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 confiscated drugs "immediately after seizure and confiscation." 43

In this case, it is undisputed that the apprehending team failed to comply with the three-witness rule under Sec. 21. It was not established whether the required witnesses were at or near the intended place of arrest at the time of accused-appellant's apprehension. The prosecution merely proved that the inventory was witnessed only by accused-appellant and a barangay official — Barangay Kagawad Sta. Barbara. There was no representative from the NPS or the media. Under the law, the presence of a representative from the NPS or media is mandatory. The absence of the justification accented the gaps in the chain of custody, and should result in the negation of the evidence of the corpus delicti right from the outset. 44

To be sure, noncompliance with the mandatory procedure under Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, does not in itself render the confiscated drugs inadmissible, as the desire for a perfect and unbroken chain of custody rarely occurs, but only triggers the operation of the saving clause under the same provision. 45 aScITE

However, for the saving clause to apply, the prosecution must be able to reasonably explain the procedural lapses. More importantly, the prosecution must establish that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized evidence have been preserved. Stated otherwise, before a deviation from the mandatory procedural requirements under Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, may be allowed, the following requisites must be satisfied: (1) justifiable grounds must be shown to exist, warranting a departure from the rule on strict compliance; and (2) the apprehending team must prove that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items have been properly preserved. For such saving mechanism to apply, the prosecution must first recognize the lapse or lapses in the prescribed procedures and then explain such. Also, the justifiable ground for noncompliance must be proven as a fact, because the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist. 46

Here, the prosecution utterly failed to offer any explanation or justification for their noncompliance with the three-witness rule. Indeed, the buy-bust team had at least five (5) hours to look for an NPS or a media representative. They had decided to conduct the buy-bust operation on the same day, notwithstanding the lack of confirmation of the presence of the required witnesses for the inventory of the seized drugs. It was also not established that serious attempts were employed to look for an NPS or media representative given the circumstances. The Court has consistently 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. 47

To restate, the buy-bust operation was planned, thus, the team had enough time to gather and bring with them the said witnesses. The police officers even formed an apprehending team and conducted a briefing for the operation. The apprehending team had sufficient opportunity to secure the mandatory witnesses for the inventory and photographing of the seized drugs, but still failed to do so. The mere marking of the seized drugs — as well as the conduct of an inventory, in violation of the strict procedure under Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 requiring the presence of the accused-appellant, a representative of the media or the NPS and responsible government functionaries — fails to approximate compliance with the rule.

The prosecution also failed to establish the fourth link in the chain of custody which involves the submission of the seized drugs by the forensic chemist to the court when presented as evidence in the criminal case. 48

The fourth link refers to the turnover and submission of the dangerous drug from the forensic chemist to the court. In drug related cases, it is of paramount necessity that the forensic chemist testifies on the details pertaining to the handling and analysis of the dangerous drug submitted for examination, i.e., when and from whom the dangerous drug was received; what identifying labels or other things accompanied it; description of the specimen and the container it was in. Further, the forensic chemist must also identify the name and method of analysis used in determining the chemical composition of the subject specimen. 49

In People v. Ubungen, 50 the Court ruled that "in case of a stipulation by the parties to dispense with the attendance and testimony of the forensic chemist, it should be stipulated that the forensic chemist would have testified that he took the precautionary steps required in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item, thus: (1) that the forensic chemist received the seized article as marked, properly sealed, and intact; (2) that he resealed it after examination of the content; and (3) that he placed his own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered with pending trial." 51

In the case at bar, the parties stipulated that PCI Bonifacio:

1. That she is the Forensic Chemist in this case and she presented Chemistry Report No. D-2037-16 which was subsequently marked as Exhibit "O" and her signature therein was marked Exhibit "O-1";

2. [That] she can identify her signature on the Chain of Custody previously marked as Exhibit "F";

3. [That] she brought with her the plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance contained in a small brown envelope which were subsequently marked as Exhibits "Q" and "R", and her signature in Exhibit "Q" was marked as Exhibit "Q-1";

4. That said specimen was the one indicated in the Chemistry Report No. D-2037-16. 52

The stipulations made by the parties failed to comply with the aforesaid conditions. Notably, it was not established how PCI Bonifacio sealed the specimens after she conducted the examination. There is no way of knowing how the drugs were kept while in her custody until it was transferred to the court. PCI Bonifacio should have testified on the safekeeping of the drugs but the parties resorted to a general stipulation on the existence of the chemistry report. Indeed, the records are wanting of any details regarding the custody of the seized drugs during the interim — from the time it was turned over to the laboratory up to its presentation in court. Indubitably, there was no showing that precautions were taken to ensure that there was no change in the condition of the specimen and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession thereof. The Court can only conclude that the integrity of the corpus delicti was not preserved.

In view of the above discussions, the Court is inclined to rule in accused-appellant's favor anent his claim of unlawful warrantless arrest.

In People v. Claudel, 53 the Court held that "[a] buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment in which the violator is caught in flagrante delicto and the police officers conducting the operation are not only authorized but duty-bound to apprehend the violator and to search him for anything that may have been part of or used in the commission of the crime. However, where there really was no buy-bust operation conducted, the elements of illegal sale of prohibited drugs cannot be proved and the indictment against the accused will have no leg to stand on. What puts in doubt the very conduct of the buy-bust operation is the police officers' deliberate disregard of the requirements of the law, which leads the Court to believe that the buy-bust operation against accused was a mere pretense, a sham." 54

Herein, there is doubt in the very conduct of the buy-bust operation, particularly, in the apprehending team's deliberate disregard of the requirements of the law, which leads the Court to believe that the buy-bust operation against accused-appellant was a mere pretense, a sham. To recall, the required three witnesses were not present during the buy-bust operation when the alleged drugs were seized from accused-appellant. The apprehending team failed to secure the presence of the three witnesses at the time of seizure and confiscation of the drugs and at the time of the warrantless arrest. Indeed, there were no unbiased witnesses to prove the veracity of the events that transpired on the day of the incident or whether the said buy-bust operation actually took place. The surrounding circumstances raise doubt and/or suspicion as to the conduct of the buy-bust operation.

In fine, the Court is of the considered view that the chain of custody of the seized substance was compromised. Considering that the integrity of two of the four links laid down by jurisprudence has been cast in doubt, this issue must be resolved in favor of accused-appellant. Therefore, acquittal is in order.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The January 27, 2020 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12154 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE for failure of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of accused-appellant Gerson Espiritu y Tenorio alias "Herson." Accused-appellant is ACQUITTED of the crime charged against him and ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from custody unless he is being held for some other lawful cause.

The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ORDERED to IMPLEMENT this Judgment and to INFORM this Court of the date of the actual release from confinement of Gerson Espiritu y Tenorio alias "Herson" within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.

Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.

SO ORDERED."Lopez, M., J., on official leave.

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. 25-27.

2.Id. at 4-24; penned by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos, with Associate Justices Franchito N. Diamante and Gabriel T. Robeniol, concurring.

3. CA rollo, pp. 48-56; penned by Presiding Judge Mariam G. Bien.

4. 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.

5. 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."

6.Rollo, p. 5.

7.Id.

8.Id. at 6.

9.Id.

10.Id.

11.Id.

12.Id. at 6-7.

13.Id. at 7.

14.Id.

15.Id.

16.Id. at 7-8.

17.Id. at 8.

18. CA rollo, pp. 48-56.

19.Id. at 56.

20.Id. at 55.

21.Rollo, pp. 4-24.

22.Id. at 23.

23.Id. at 15.

24.Id. at 18.

25. CA rollo, p. 35.

26.Rollo, p. 33.

27.Id. at 40-41.

28.Id. at 34-36.

29. CA rollo, pp. 28-46.

30.Id. at 36-37.

31.Id. at 38.

32.Id. at 38-40.

33.Id. at 39.

34.Id. at 41.

35.Id. at 43-44.

36.Id. at 82-90.

37.People v. Labadan, G.R. No. 237769, March 11, 2019.

38.People v. Calates, 829 Phil. 262, 269 (2018).

39.People v. Malabanan, G.R. No. 241950, April 10, 2019, 901 SCRA 600, 612.

40.People v. Dumanjug, G.R. No. 235468, July 1, 2019, 907 SCRA 89, 102.

41.Supra note 5.

42.People v. Bangcola, G.R. No. 237802, March 18, 2019, 897 SCRA 330, 346-347.

43.People v. Leaño, G.R. No. 246461, July 28, 2020, citing People v. Tomawis, 830 Phil. 385, 409 (2018).

44.People v. Calates, supra note 38, at 273.

45. See People v. Manansala, G.R. No. 228825, July 28, 2020.

46.Id.

47.People v. Balubal, G.R. No. 234033, July 30, 2018, 875 SCRA 1, 20, citing People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024, 1052-1053 (2012).

48.People v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 235658, June 22, 2020.

49.People v. Omamos, G.R. No. 223036, July 10, 2019.

50. 836 Phil. 888 (2018).

51.Id. at 901.

52. CA rollo, p. 53.

53. G.R. No. 219852, April 3, 2019.

54.Id.

n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.