THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 234819. April 26, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. WILSON HIGASHI y CARRION, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated April 26, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 234819 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, v. WILSON HIGASHI y CARRION, accused-appellant). — On appeal is the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals affirming the Regional Trial Court's Joint Decision 2 convicting Wilson Higashi (Higashi) of violating Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Higashi was charged with illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, punished under Sections 5 and 11, respectively, of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, in two (2) separate Informations that read:
Crim. Case No. L-10796
That on or about the evening of January 1, 2016 in Brgy. Poblacion West, Sual, Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously sell one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or Shabu, a dangerous drug, in exchange for P1,000.00 to PO1 Ramil P. Ronquillo, who acted as poseur-buyer, without lawful authority to do the same.
Contrary to Article II, Section 5 of R.A. 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). 3
Crim. Case No. L-10797
That on or about the evening of January 1, 2016 in Brgy. Poblacion West, Sual, 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 or Shabu, a dangerous drug, without authority to possess the same.
Contrary to Article II, Section 11 of R.A. 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). 4
Upon arraignment, Higashi entered a plea of not guilty to both charges. After pre-trial was terminated, trial on the merits ensued. 5
The prosecution evidence showed that, weeks prior to January 1, 2016, the Philippine National Police (PNP) Station of Sual, Pangasinan received information that a certain "Wilson" 6 was peddling dangerous drugs in Sual. 7 A police surveillance conducted at the directive of the Chief of Police, Police Senior Inspector Leo Sison Llamas (PSI Llamas), confirmed the veracity of the information. 8
Thereafter, a buy-bust operation was planned, with Police Officer 1 (PO1) Ramil Ronquillo designated as poseur-buyer. 9 He marked a P1,000.00 bill with "RPR" for the operation. 10 CAIHTE
On December 31, 2015, PO1 Ronquillo, assuming the name of "Randy," transacted with Higashi through a phone call 11 and ordered shabu worth P1,000.00. They agreed to meet the next day in front of the Blue Sugar Restaurant in Poblacion West, Sual for the delivery of the item. PO1 Ronquillo would be wearing a gray shirt and brown shorts, while Higashi would be wearing a blue polo shirt and camouflage shorts. 12
At 2:00 p.m. on January 1, 2016, PSI Llamas briefed the members of the buy-bust team about the operation. The team also coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. 13
At about 5:30 p.m. of the same day, the police proceeded to the agreed location. PO1 Ronquillo waited in front of the restaurant, while the rest of the buy-bust team strategically positioned themselves nearby. 14
After a few minutes, Higashi alighted from a passenger bus. He approached PO1 Ronquillo and asked if he was Randy, which the latter affirmed. After a brief conversation, PO1 Ronquillo handed the marked P1,000.00 bill, which Higashi immediately placed in his pocket. Higashi took out a heat-sealed plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance from his pocket and gave it to PO1 Ronquillo. After examining the contents of the sachet, PO1 Ronquillo gave the signal for the team to approach. 15
PO1 Ronquillo then introduced himself as a police officer, arrested Higashi, and frisked him. He recovered the marked money and found another heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet from Higashi's pocket. 16 Thereafter, PO1 Ronquillo inventoried and marked the plastic sachets subject of the sale with "RPR-1", and "RPR-2" for the recovered sachet. The marking and inventory were conducted in the presence of Higashi and Barangay Kagawad Mherlie I. Osana of Poblacion, Sual. PO1 Ronquillo prepared the confiscation receipt. Photographs were likewise taken. 17
After the inventory, PO1 Ronquillo brought Higashi and the seized items to the Sual police station for documentation, and then to the Pangasinan Provincial Crime Laboratory Office in Lingayen, Pangasinan for drug testing and laboratory examination. The items were accompanied by a Request for Laboratory Examination which PSI Llamas signed. Police Chief Inspector Myrna Malojo-Todeño (PCI Todeño) received the sachets and request, inspected the items and confirmed that they were marked RPR1 and RPR2 and examined the sachet contents. Her findings were summarized in Chemistry Report No. D-001-2016L, which showed that the two plastic sachets, weighing 0.094 gram and 0.015 gram, were positive for the presence of illegal drugs. 18
PCI Todeño placed the sachets inside a brown envelope, which she endorsed to the evidence custodian, Elmer Manuel. The envelope, when produced in Court, was admitted to be without any indication of tampering. 19
For his part, Higashi denied the charges against him. He claimed that at 10:00 a.m. on January 1, 2016, he visited the house of his friend, Jun Villamor, in Sual where they had a drinking spree. At about 3:00 p.m., five intelligence operatives from the PNP arrived and without saying any word, handcuffed and frisked him and his friend. Seized from him were his cellular phone and his wallet containing P3,500.00. He claimed that no one from the police operatives answered his query as to why he was being arrested. 20
Thereafter, he was allegedly brought to the police station of Sual where he was shown two plastic sachets and a P1,000.00 bill. He was told that the items belonged to him but he denied this despite the insistence of the police. Afterwards, three policemen brought him to the Blue Sugar Restaurant, where pictures of him were taken. He claimed that a female person arrived and signed some documents and about 20 minutes later, additional pictures were taken of him with the said female person and the policemen. He only learned later on that the female person was a barangay official. 21
On May 17, 2016, 22 the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan convicted Higashi of the crimes charged against him.
The Regional Trial Court found that the prosecution established all the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. 23 It rejected the accused's uncorroborated claim of frame-up for lack of clear and convincing evidence. 24 It gave credence to the positive testimony of PO1 Ronquillo, who was consistent even during cross-examination and had no ill motive to testify against the accused. 25 The trial court also found no broken link in the chain of custody of the seized drugs, emphasizing that the envelope containing the evidence surrendered by PCI Todeño to the custodian for safekeeping were untampered. 26
The dispositive portion of the Regional Trial Court's Joint Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the accused is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violations of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 and is accordingly sentenced to suffer:
(1) In Criminal Case No. L-10796: the penalty of life imprisonment, without eligibility for parole, and to pay a fine of P500,000.00; and
(2) In Criminal Case No. L-10797: the penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to seventeen (17) years, as maximum and to pay a fine of P300,000.00;
and such other accessory penalties provided for in the law.
The two (2) sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride subject of these cases are confiscated in favor of the government to be dealt with as the law directs.
SO ORDERED. 27 DETACa
Higashi filed an appeal, 28 raising the improbability and inconsistency of the testimonies by the prosecution witnesses and the noncompliance with the provision of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended, on the proper handling of seized drugs. 29
In its Decision, 30 the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the Regional Trial Court. It held that the prosecution witness positively identified Higashi as the person who sold him shabu drug during the buy-bust operation. 31 It held that the prosecution also successfully established Higashi's possession of the other sachet of prohibited drug, which was retrieved by one of the police officers from his pocket. 32
The Court of Appeals further held that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. The prosecution witness' narration had sufficiently shown the unbroken chain of custody of the drugs from the time of its seizure, to its submission to PCI Todeño, until its presentation in court. 33 The Court of Appeals Decision disposed the case thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Appeal is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the Joint Decision dated 17 May 2016 rendered by Branch 69, Regional Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan, is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED. 34
On June 29, 2017, Higashi filed a Notice of Appeal, 35 which was given due course by the Court of Appeals in its August 9, 2017 Resolution. 36
In a Resolution, 37 this Court noted the records forwarded by the Court of Appeals and informed the parties that they may file their supplemental briefs.
Accused-appellant Higashi 38 and the Office of the Solicitor General, 39 representing the People of the Philippines, manifested that they would no longer file a supplemental brief.
For resolution is the issue of whether or not the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant violated Sections 5 and 11 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.
The appeal lacks merit.
I
Accused-appellant claims that the inconsistencies in the prosecution witness' testimony and the documentary evidence cast doubt on the validity of the buy-bust operation and his culpability. 40
First, he points out that PO1 Ronquillo narrated in his Affidavit that the transaction occurred on December 31, 2015; but gave a different date on cross-examination. 41Second, he points out PO1 Ronquillo testified that there were six police officers involved in the buy-bust operation including him; but the coordination form indicates only four persons. 42Third, PO1 Ronquillo stated in his Affidavit that he prepared the marked money prior to the buy-bust, contrary to his testimony in his direct examination that he marked the P1,000.00 bill in the place where the buy-bust was conducted. 43 Accused-appellant alleges these contradictions, together with the deviation by the buy-bust team from the Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operation and Investigation of the PNP on the guidelines in preparing the boodle money, allegedly raise doubt on the validity of the buy-bust operation. 44
Accused-appellant's assertions are untenable. The alleged inconsistencies are neither substantial nor of such nature as to cast a serious doubt on PO1 Ronquillo's credibility. "The established rule of evidence is that inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses with respect to minor details and collateral matters do not affect either the substance of their declaration, their veracity or the weight of their testimony." 45
Here, it was not PO1 Ronquillo who stated the date as to when he called the accused-appellant for the transaction. It was appellant's counsel, on cross-examination, who asked what time on January 1, 2016 PO1 Ronquillo contacted appellant for the transaction. Thus, PO1 Ronquillo must have been misled when he answered "morning."
Q: On January 1, 2016 what time was it when you first contacted Wilson Higashi on that day January 1, 2016 purposely for buying prohibited drugs from him?
A: Morning, sir.
Q: You were the one who contacted him?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: You texted him?
A: I called him, sir.
Q: You called him and you told him you wanted to buy drugs from him?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And during your phone conversation after you asked that you want (sic) buy drugs from him he agreed to sell you drugs?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What time was that? You said in the morning, what time in the morning?
A: 10:30, sir. 46 (Emphasis in the original)
Moreover, there was no inconsistency as to when the P1,000.00 bill was marked. It is clear from PO1 Ronquillo's affidavit that it was prepared and marked on December 31, 2015. 47 From the way the questions where phased and sequenced, it was not exactly clear which markings the counsel were referring to, and PO1 Ronquillo could have been reasonably misled to think that the question referred to the markings on the plastic sachets of shabu that were recovered from the accused-appellant. This is especially true since the previous question referred to the confiscation receipt that he prepared at the place of arrest. Thus:
Q: I'm showing you a marked money, will you please identify if this is the one you are saying?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Where are the markings that you have put? aDSIHc
A: Left down under the serial number, sir.
Q: Will you please read what is that?
A: RPR, sir.
Q: Mr. witness, you said a confiscation receipt was prepared, I'm showing to you a confiscation receipt, will you please identify, is this the one you are saying?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Mr. witness, where by the way again did you put the markings? What place?
A: Place of the incident, sir.
Q: About this confiscation receipt where did you prepare this?
A: Also there, sir.
Q: Where there?
A: Place of incident, sir. 48 (Emphasis supplied)
At any rate, these imputed inconsistencies do not undermine the integrity of the prosecution witness. These details pertain to collateral matters and not to the essential elements of the crimes as charged, which were proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
The elements of illegal sale 49 and illegal possession 50 of dangerous drugs, according to People v. Morales, 51 are:
In actions involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must first be established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.
On the other hand, in prosecutions for illegal possession of a dangerous drug, it must be shown that (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. Similarly, in this case, the evidence of the corpus delicti must be established beyond reasonable doubt. 52
PO1 Ramil Ronquillo rendered a complete account as to the facts and circumstances surrounding the buy-bust operation. 53 His testimony categorically established that one sachet of shabu was given to him by the accused-appellant in exchange for the buy-bust money. The other sachet was recovered from the accused-appellant's pocket during the body frisk after he was caught inflagrantedelicto for the illegal sale of shabu. 54 The prosecution presented the sachets of shabu marked as RPR-1 and RPR-2, as well as the buy-bust money used for the sale transaction. 55 The Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court apply found that the prosecution successfully established the elements necessary to convict accused-appellant for the offenses he was charged.
II
Accused-appellant further contends that the prosecution failed to prove that the arresting officers marked the seized items in the presence of the accused-appellant and the required witnesses. 56 He adds that the absence of a representative from the media and the Department of Justice is inexcusable. 57 Finally, he avers that it was not clear who received the seized items from PO1 Ronquillo at the crime laboratory, neither was it shown how the specimen was handled and preserved while in the forensic chemist's control. 58
These contentions are likewise untenable.
Section 21 (1) of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640, 59 states the requirements for the custody and disposition of confiscated drugs and/or drug paraphernalia. Section 21 provides:
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the 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) ETHIDa
The law requires the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items to be done: (1) immediately after confiscation; and (2) in the presence of the accused or his/her representative, an elective public official, and a representative from either the National Prosecution Service or the media. The presence of these witnesses is required "primarily to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence." 60
However, a deviation from the requirement of Section 21 is not fatal in all cases. The same proviso provides that noncompliance with the requirements will not ipso facto render void and invalid the seizure and custody of the seized items, provided that: "(a) there is a justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved." 61 This requires the prosecution to explain and prove the reasons behind the procedural lapses of the apprehending officers. 62
In People v. Dimaano, 63 We held:
The purpose of Section 21 is "to [protect] the accused from malicious imputations of guilt by abusive police officers[.]"
Nevertheless, Section 21 cannot be used to "thwart the legitimate efforts of law enforcement agents." "Slight infractions or nominal deviations by the police from the prescribed method of handling the corpusdelicti [as provided in Section 21] should not exculpate an otherwise guilty defendant." Thus, "substantial adherence" to Section 21 will suffice, and, as Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act provides:
[N]on-compliance with [the] requirements [of Section 21] 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 of and custody over said items[.] 64 (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted)
After a thorough review of this case, We sustain the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals' findings that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items seized from accused-appellant were duly preserved.
At the place of apprehension, PO1 Ronquillo marked and inventoried the two plastic sachets of shabu seized from the accused. The sachet bought from accused-appellant was marked as "RPR-1," and the other sachet recovered from his pocket, marked as "RPR-2." 65 The accused and Barangay Kagawad Mherlie Osana witnessed the markings and signed the Confiscation Receipt, Photographs were also taken. The absence of media or Department of Justice representatives was sufficiently explained by PO1 Ronquillo when he testified that they were not able to come despite being contacted. 66 Hence, the representatives' absence was not the fault of the apprehending officers. As held by the Regional Trial Court, such explanation provided the needed justification given the attendant time constraint. 67
It was clear from the facts of this case that PO1 Ronquillo had sole custody of the confiscated shabu from the time of marking and inventory at the place of arrest, to the police station where the request for laboratory examination was prepared, and until the items were personally received by PCI Todeño at the Crime Laboratory. 68 The seized items, when tested by PCI Todeño, yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. 69 It was admitted by the defense that after the examination of the sachets of shabu, PCI Todeño placed them inside a brown envelope, 70 delivered them to the evidence custodian for safekeeping, and when subpoenaed, brought the envelope untampered to the court. 71 PO1 Ronquillo then positively identified the sachets of shabu brought to court by PCI Todeño as the same items he confiscated from accused-appellant during the buy-bust operation. 72
As these facts made certain the identity of the sachets of shabu presented in evidence as the same ones recovered from the accused-appellant, this Court affirms his conviction for the crimes of illegal sale and possession of shabu. Furthermore, We find the imposition of the penalty to be in order.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The May 31, 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 08379 finding accused-appellant WILSON HIGASHIyCARRION guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 is hereby AFFIRMED.
For violation of Section 5 for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drug, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, without eligibility for parole, and to pay a fine of P500,000.00. Meanwhile, for violation of Section 11 for Possession of Dangerous Drug, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to seventeen (17) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P300,000.00. cSEDTC
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) RUMAR D. PASIONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-13. The Decision dated May 31, 2017 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08379 was penned by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda (now a Member of this Court) and was concurred in by Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Ma. Luisa Quijano-Padilla of the Tenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
2. CA rollo, pp. 52-60. The Joint Decision dated May 17, 2016 in Crim. Case Nos. L-10796-97 was penned by Presiding Judge Loreto S. Alog, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan, Branch 69.
3.Rollo, p. 3.
4.Id. at 4.
5.Id.
6.Id.
7. CA rollo,p. 53, RTC Joint Decision.
8.Id.
9.Id.
10.Id.
11.Rollo, p. 5.
12. CA rollo,p. 53.
13.Id. at 54.
14.Id.
15.Id. at 54.
16.Rollo, p. 5; and CA rollo, p. 56.
17. CA rollo, p. 54.
18.Id.
19.Id. at 54-55.
20.Id. at 55.
21.Id. at 55.
22.Id. at 52-60.
23.Id. at 56.
24.Id. at 56-57.
25.Id. at 57.
26.Id. at 58.
27.Id. at 60.
28.Id. at 28.
29.Id. at 39.
30.Id. at 2-13. The May 31, 2017 Decision in CA-G.R. CR-HC No 08379 was penned by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda (now a Member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Ma. Luisa Quijano-Padilla of the Tenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
31.Id. at 8.
32.Id. at 9.
33.Id. at 10.
34.Id. at 12.
35.Id. at 14-15.
36.Id. at 17.
37.Id. at 19-20.
38.Id. at 29-33.
39.Id. at 21-26.
40. CA rollo, pp. 38-39.
41.Id. at 39.
42.Id. at 39-40.
43.Id. at 40.
44.Id.at 41.
45.People v. Nicolas, 311 Phil. 79, 88 [Per J. Bellosillo, First Division].
46. CA rollo, p. 39, Accused-appellant's brief.
47.Id. at 40.
48.Id. at 40-41.
49. 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[.]
50. SECTION 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof[.]
51. 630 Phil. 215 (2010) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division].
52.Id. at 228 citing People v. Darisan. 597 Phil. 479, 485 (2009) [Per J. Corona, First Division]; and People v. Partoza, 605 Phil. 883, 890 (2009) [Per J. Tiñga, Second Division].
53.Rollo,p. 8.
54. CA rollo, p. 56.
55.Rollo, p. 8.
56. CA rollo, p. 46.
57.Id. at 47.
58.Id. at 48.
59. 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,' July 15, 2014.
60.People v. Gabunada, G.R. No. 242827, September 9, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65725> [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division].
61.Id.
62.Id.
63. 780 Phil. 586 (2016) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
64.Id. at 605-606.
65. CA rollo, p. 54.
66.Id. at 54 and 93-95.
67.Id. at 59.
68.Id. at 58.
69.Id. at 54.
70.Rollo,p. 11.
71. CA rollo,pp. 58 and 62.
72.Id. at 58.