People v. Ibay y Binolan

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 251875. July 6, 2022.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. MAVERICK IBAY y BINOLAN alias "RICK",accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 6, 2022, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 251875 (People of the Philippines v. Maverick Ibay y Binolan alias "Rick"). — Accused-appellant Maverick Ibay y Binolan alias "Rick" (appellant) remonstrates against the Decision1 dated 30 August 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 10811, which affirmed the judgment finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165. 2

ANTECEDENTS

This Appeal has its provenance in two Informations 3 filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tuguegarao City, Branch 02, charging appellant with the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the inculpatory averments of which read:

Criminal Case No. 15838

That on or about November 5, 2011, in the municipality of Solana, province of Cagayan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said [appellant] without authority, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, give away to another and deliver to a PDEA agent who posted (sic) as buyer, five (5) pieces of heat(-)sealed transparent sachet containing white crystalline substance, methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug commonly known as SHABU, three (3) pieces of which weighing approximately 0.04 grams each and two (2) pieces weighing approximately 0.03 grams each more or less, respectively, for and in consideration of the amount of PHP5,000 which resulted to (sic) the apprehension of the [appellant] and the confiscation from his possession and custody the pre-marked buy-bust money, consisting of one (1) piece genuine one thousand peso bill denomination bearing serial No. KR013424 and four (4) pieces (of) boodle money.

Contrary to law. 4

Criminal Case No. 15839

That on or about November 5, 2011, in the municipality of Solana, province of Cagayan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said [appellant] after he was caught selling without authority five (5) pieces of heat-sealed plastic sachet containing white-crystalline substance, methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug commonly known as SHABU to a PDEA agent which resulted to (sic) the apprehension of the [appellant] and when frisk(ed), did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously still have in his possession control and custody twenty-five (25) pieces of heat(-)sealed plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug commonly known as SHABU weighing approximately 0.87 grams, more or less which was confiscated from the possession, control and custody of the [appellant].

Contrary to law. 5

Upon arraignment, appellant pled not guilty to both charges. 6

On 22 January 2014, both cases were consolidated. 7 After the pre-trial conference, joint trial on the merits forthwith ensued. CAIHTE

The prosecution 8 proffered the following factual milieu:

Around ten o'clock in the morning of 5 November 2011, SO2 Romarico Pagulayan (SO2 Pagulayan) of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Regional Office No. 02, Tuguegarao City, received information from a confidential informant (CI) that a certain Rick Ibay, who turned out to be the appellant, was engaged in the selling of dangerous drugs. Thereupon, SO2 Pagulayan informed Regional Director Juvenal B. Azurin, who instructed him to form a team to conduct a buy-bust operation.

Tout de suite, SO2 Pagulayan, as the team leader, held a briefing on even date for the operation to roll out later that day. During the meeting, he designated the following as their team members: IO1 Byron Z. Gapusan (IO1 Gapusan) as the arresting officer; IO2 Joseph P. Sacolles (IO2 Sacolles) as the poseur-buyer; IO1 Edna Bitamug (IO1 Bitamug) as the investigator; and IO1 Johnny Sumalag (IO1 Sumalag) and IO1 Benjamin Binwag (IO1 Binwag), as back-up. The team agreed of the pre-arranged signal of a missed call from IO2 Sacolles to IO1 Gapusan once the transaction is consummated. As it happened, IO2 Sacolles was given the buy-bust money of P5,000.00 consisting of one genuine P1,000.00 bill with serial number KR013424 9 and four P1,000.00 bills.

Thenceforth, the buy-bust team proceeded to Solana, Cagayan where they stopped along the national highway to meet the CI at a restaurant near a rice mill. After a short final briefing, SO2 Pagulayan instructed the CI to call appellant and relay the information about a friend who was looking for shabu worth P5,000.00. Appellant replied to meet him in Gadu, Solana, Cagayan. Subsequently, SO2 Pagulayan directed the CI and IO2 Sacolles to proceed to the agreed place of transaction while the rest of the team were on their heels.

Around 12:15 p.m., the CI and IO2 Sacolles arrived at a certain house in Barangay Gadu, Solana, Cagayan, where appellant was waiting. He led them inside the house where he immediately asked for the payment. IO2 Sacolles gave him the P5,000.00 buy-bust money, and posthaste, he brought out from his pocket five (5) pieces of small, heat-sealed, transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance and handed them to IO2 Sacolles. Upon receiving the same, IO2 Sacolles put them in his pocket and covertly made the pre-arranged signal.

When IO1 Gapusan received the agreed signal for the transaction's completion, he and the rest of the team rushed to the house. Sensing the arrival of his teammates, IO2 Sacolles introduced himself as a PDEA agent and instructed appellant not to move. IO1 Gapusan forthwith handcuffed appellant and subjected him to a body search. Recovered from him were the following: a large sachet inside of which were 25 small, heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing white crystalline substance, the buy-bust money, and a cellular phone which he all placed in his pocket. Afterwards, SO2 Pagulayan informed appellant of his constitutional rights.

To avoid any possible confrontation, the PDEA team brought appellant and the seized items to their office at Camp Adduru, Tuguegarao City, for immediate documentation and processing. Thereat, IO2 Sacolles marked each of the items he bought from appellant with his initials "JPS", the date, and his signature as well as "EXH. A-1", "EXH. A-2", "EXH. A-3", "EXH. A-4" and "EXH. A-5," respectively. IO1 Gapusan, for his part, marked each of those he seized with his initials "BZG", the date, and his signature. They prepared the inventory 10 thereof in the presence of appellant, Ferdinand Gangan (Gangan) of the Department of Justice, and Cayetano Tuddao (Tuddao) of Bombo Radyo. The team likewise took photographs of the proceedings. 11

Ensuingly, SO2 Pagulayan prepared the requests for laboratory examination of the subject items 12 and appellant's medical examination. 13 IO2 Sacolles and IO1 Gapusan delivered the items purchased and seized from appellant, respectively, to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Regional Crime Laboratory Office 2 (RCLO 2) for laboratory examination. PO2 Oscar Mangada (PO2 Mangada), who received the seized items and logged them in the central logbook of the RCLO 2, immediately turned them over to Police Senior Inspector Maria Pia Moskito (PSI Moskito), the forensic chemist.

PSI Moskito conducted a laboratory examination thereon, yielding the following results: DETACa

"Chemistry REPORT NO. D-93-2011 14

xxx xxx xxx

SPECIMEN(S) SUBMITTED:

Five (5) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing white crystalline substance with the following markings and recorded net weights:

A (EXH. "A-1" JPS 11-05-2011 with signature) = 0.04 gram

FINDINGS:

Qualitative examination conducted on the above-stated specimens gave POSITIVE results to the tests for the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. x x x

CONCLUSION:

Specimens A to E contain Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug x x x.

Chemistry REPORT NO. D-94-2011 15

xxx xxx xxx

SPECIMEN(S) SUBMITTED:

Twenty Five (25) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing white crystalline substance with the following markings and recorded net weights:

A (EXH. "B-1" BZG 11-05-2011 with signature) = 0.03 gram16

Continuation:

I (EXH. "B-9" BZG 11-05-2011 with signature) = 0.04 gram17

xxx xxx xxx

FINDINGS:

Qualitative examination conducted on the above-stated specimens gave POSITIVE results to the tests for the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. x x x

CONCLUSION:

Specimens A to Y contain Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug x x x." 18

Professing his innocence, appellant proffered 19 a divergent narrative.

Around noon of 5 November 2011, he and Georgeson Ibay (Georgeson) boarded a motorcycle to go to the wake of his aunt, Virginia Siguid. They passed by the house of Jun Yap (Jun) to check on the fighting cock he entrusted to him. However, Jun was not around. As they were about to leave, Jun's nephew, Rene Balisi (Rene) and another person, arrived. Appellant told Rene that he only came to see his fighting cock.

Rene invited appellant to wait inside Jun's house. While waiting there, appellant was surprised when a female and two male persons rushed inside the house, frisked him, and immediately arrested him. Resisting, he told them that there was no reason for his apprehension. Nonetheless, they overcame him and brought him first to Tuao, Cagayan and thereafter, to the PDEA office. He later learned that he was suspected for being a drug pusher. His plea of innocence was unheeded.

Georgeson 20 corroborated appellant's testimony, avowing that he stayed outside when appellant entered the house. In a bit, he saw a vehicle arrive with a female and two male persons alighting therefrom and running inside the house. When he peeped inside the house, he saw them frisking, handcuffing, and arresting appellant. Georgeson then informed appellant's mother and younger brother about the incident.

On 12 February 2018, the RTC rendered a Decision 21 finding appellant guilty of the crimes charged, thus —

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

1. In Criminal Case No. 15838, the Court finds accused MAVERICK IBAY y Binolan alias Rick, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the charge for violation of Sec. 5, Art. II, R.A. 9165, and sentences him to suffer LIFE imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) pesos; and

2. In Criminal Case No. 15839, the Court finds accused MAVERICK IBAY y Binolan alias Rick, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the charge for violation of Sec. 11, Art. II, RA 9165 and sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of Twelve (12) years and One (1) day as minimum to Twenty (20) years as maximum and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand (P300,000.00) pesos.

The dangerous drugs presented before the Court are hereby forfeited and confiscated in favor of the government and the Branch Clerk of Court is hereby directed to immediately deliver the said items to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposition. aDSIHc

SO ORDERED."22

Aggrieved, appellant appealed the adverse judgment of the RTC against him to the CA. 23

Finding no reversible errors on the part of the RTC, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC via the challenged Decision.

Maintaining that he must be exonerated, appellant seeks refuge before this Court intransigently asseverating that the testimonies of the police officers regarding the purported buy-bust operation were dubious. Likewise, the sachets supposedly bought and recovered from him were inadmissible in evidence for being fruits of the poisonous tree. Moreover, given that the requirements of Section 21 of RA No. 9165 were not complied with, the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody. 24

RULING OF THE COURT

The Appeal is impressed with merit.

It is primal that in illegal drugs cases, the drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. The prosecution is, therefore, tasked to establish that the substance illegally possessed or sold by the accused is the same substance presented in court. 25Simply put, the core issue in every indictment for illegal sale or possession of dangerous drugs revolves around the strict observance of the chain of custody rule since compliance therewith determines the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti. 26

In the case at bench, appellant was inculpated for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs as defined and penalized under Sections 5 and 11, respectively, of Article II of RA No. 9165. In both cases, as the confiscated drugs constitute the very corpus delicti of the offenses, 27 the fact of their existence is essential to sustain a judgment of conviction. It is vital, therefore, that the identity and integrity of the seized drugs be established with moral certainty. To do this, each link of the chain of custody must be accounted for. 28

Upon this point, RA No. 9165 prescribes the chain of custody requirements for the safeguarding and custody of items seized in a buy-bust operation. Complying with the stringent measures as provided in Section 21 thereof ensures the preservation of evidentiary value and integrity of the seized items.

There is no gainsaying that appellant committed the subject crimes before the effectivity of RA No. 10640. 29 Appropriately, Section 21 of RA No. 9165 applies, viz.:

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 drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; x x x

Generally, there are four links in the chain of custody of the seized illegal drug that must be established: (1) its seizure and marking, if practicable, from the accused, by the apprehending officer; (2) its turnover by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) its turnover by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist for examination; and, (4) its turnover by the forensic chemist to the court. 30

After a perspicacious review of the records, the Court finds and so holds that crucial gaps in the first and fourth links of the chain of custody of the seized drugs occurred thereby casting doubt on the integrity of the seized items.

Break in the first link —

The first link speaks of seizure and marking which should be done immediately at the place of arrest and seizure. It also includes the physical inventory and taking of photographs of the seized or confiscated drugs, which should 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 RA 9165 by RA 10640 a representative from the media AND the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official; or (b) if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, an elected public official AND a representative of the National Prosecution Service OR the media. 31 Given that the offenses were committed before the amendment of RA No. 9165, the aforesaid three witnesses must be present thereat. ETHIDa

Clear as day, the first link was breached repeatedly in the case at bench.

As it happened, IO2 Sacolles and IO1 Gapusan did not mark the drug items immediately after they bought and seized the same, respectively. Instead, each of them placed the confiscated items in their pockets 32 and marked, inventoried, and photographed them only when they arrived in their office after travelling for 30 minutes. 33

Anent the marking of the seized illegal drugs in warrantless seizures, which is a different requirement from inventorying and photographing, 34 while not expressly specified in Section 21, consistency with the chain of custody rule requires that such should be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator and (2) immediately upon confiscation. This step initiates the process of protecting innocent persons from dubious and concocted searches on one hand, and of protecting the apprehending officers from harassment suits based on planting of evidence under Section 29 and on allegations of robbery or theft, on the other. 35

The immediate marking of the seized illegal drugs is vital because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking obviates switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence as it separates 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 criminal proceedings. 36 Thus, sans marking while en route to the PDEA office, the integrity of the seized drugs herein was put in dubiety.

It bears emphasis that the conduct of the marking and inventory at the police station or office is permissible upon compliance with these two conditions: (1) it is practicable; and (2) the police station or office must be the nearest one to the place of arrest. 37 Regrettably, the prosecution witnesses failed to establish the presence of these conditions. In actual fact, the inventory was made at the police station because as explained by SO2 Pagulayan —

Q Mr. witness, why is [sic] the inventory not conducted in the place of the transaction?

A The inventory was not conducted at the place of the transaction considering that we are [sic] avoiding the possible confrontation of the team with the relatives and neighbors of the arrested suspect and to conduct an inventory at the place would take time for the witnesses to be travelling in going to the place of the transaction.

Q So, what would you conclude that there might be a possible confrontation between the team and the relatives of the [appellant]?

A Maybe the relatives and neighbors were just observing our move before they will engage to (sic) any confrontation, ma'am. 38 (Emphasis supplied)

xxx xxx xxx

Q Mr. witness, you claimed that these people are relatives of the [appellant], did you ask them, if they are indeed relatives of the [appellant][?]

A They might be the relatives of the [appellant], sir.

Q So, it was only your supposition or speculation that these people who allegedly came out from their respective houses are relatives of the [appellant], is that correct, Mr. witness?

A Yes, sir.

Q And your reason of not conducting the inventory at the place of transaction is because of your speculation and supposition or suspicion that something might happened [sic] in the place, is that correct, Mr. witness?

A Yes, sir.39 (Emphasis supplied)

On this score, the Court has held that the immediate physical inventory and photograph of the confiscated items at the place of arrest may be excused if the safety and security of the apprehending officers and the witnesses required by law or of the items seized are threatened by immediate or extreme danger, such as retaliatory action of those who have the resources and capability to mount a counter-assault. 40 Here, the prosecution proffered no justifiable reason as there is hardly no showing that the purported neighbors and "relatives" were aggressive or armed with weapons. Indeed, there was no commotion or any untoward incident that occurred after they arrested appellant. 41

Apropos the justification propounded by SO2 Pagulayan that the inventory was not conducted at the place of transaction because it "would take time for the witnesses to be travelling in going to the place of the transaction," 42 the Court finds the same implausible precisely because the mandated witnesses should already be physically present at the time of apprehension — a requirement that can easily be complied with by the buy-bust team considering that the buy-bust operation is, by its nature, a planned activity. 43 The presence of these witnesses was specifically mandated by substantive law exactly to guard against the rather pervasive police practice of planting evidence in anti-narcotics operations — a practice that necessarily takes place at the point of seizure and confiscation. Hence, it is at this point that their presence is most crucial. 44

As may be gleaned from SO2 Pagulayan's testimony, the team had no intention to call the mandated witnesses during the buy-bust operation. Only two of them were present, i.e., the media and DOJ representatives. It cannot be stressed enough that the absence of even one (1) of the three (3) required witnesses during the inventory and photograph of the seized items is enough to breach the chain of custody. 45

Records evince that there was no genuine effort exerted on the part of the prosecution witnesses to secure the presence of barangay officials. As SO2 Pagulayan professed —

Q Now can you tell us why there were no elected Brgy. officials during the inventory, Mr. witness?

A We were supposed to go back to Gadu to secure the presence of the brgy. officials but then we have [sic] a second thought that we did not go back anymore considering that the brgy. officials might be the relatives of the arrested suspect, ma'am. 46 (Emphasis supplied)

Likewise, SO2 Pagulayan's averment that they tried to secure the presence of other barangay officials but that the latter refused since the buy-bust operation did not take place in their area of responsibility 47 debunks any diligent efforts to secure the attendance of an elected official. If at all, it is symptomatic of lack of foresight on the part of the buy-bust team. cSEDTC

It cannot be overemphasized that the stipulations on the testimony of Gangan, the DOJ representative, tellingly reveal that he did not really witness the inventory but merely signed the inventory sheet —

PROS. BALISI-LAPPAY:

That on November 5, 2011, as a DOJ representative, the witness was invited at the PDEA office to witness an inventory in connection with the buy-bust operation conducted by the PDEA against [appellant], your Honor.

ATTY. BACULI:

Admitted, your Honor with the qualification that when he arrived at the PDEA office, the items were already laid on the table and that the inventory sheet was already accomplished. (Emphasis supplied)

PROS. BALISI-LAPPAY:

Admitted, your Honor with the counter-proposal that the witness verified the items indicated in the inventory of Seized Properties/Items as those items placed on top of the table with the corresponding markings. 48

Evidently, witnessing the conduct of an inventory as contemplated under the law is different from simply verifying the contents of the inventory sheet vis-à-vis the confiscated items, as what Gangan did. To allow such mere verification as substantial compliance with the law will defeat the very purpose for which these insulating witnesses are called for.

Another lapse showing a break in the first link was the non-compliance with the requirement in Section 21 of RA No. 9165 that the inventory should be signed by all the following persons: (1) accused or his/her representative or counsel; (2) a representative from the media; (3) a representative from the DOJ; and (4) an elected public official.

Records reflect that the two copies of the Inventory of Seized Properties/Items 49 covering the drugs bought by IO2 Sacolles and seized by IO1 Gapusan were not signed both by appellant or by his counsel or representative. The prosecution neither acknowledged such defect nor provided any explanation as to why appellant was not able to sign the said document. This non-adherence cannot be excused. 50 Such blunder blew a hole in the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items.

Breach in the fourth link —

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. 51

In cases where the parties agree to dispense with the attendance and testimony of the forensic chemist, then the parties must stipulate that (a) the forensic chemist received the seized article as marked, properly sealed, and intact; (b) he/she resealed it after examination of the contents; and (c) he/she placed his/her own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered pending trial. Absent such stipulations, the fourth link cannot be established, thus, resulting in acquittal/s. 52

Here, the parties opted to dispense with the testimony of PSI Moskito and stipulated on the following:

ATTY. BACULI:

That she did not make any physical description on the specimens of the said items when she received the same from PO3 Oscar Mangada.

PROS. RICAMORA:

Admitted, your Honor. 53 (Emphases supplied)

The foregoing admission patently demonstrated that the forensic chemist failed to make a notation on whether she received the seized article "as marked, properly sealed, and intact."

Moreover, there was absolutely no showing how the alleged seized items were stored after PSI Moskito examined the same on 6 November 2011. No evidence, testimonial nor documentary, was offered to identify the person to whom PSI Moskito gave the specimens after examination and where the same were kept until they were retrieved and presented in court by PO3 George Carag (PO3 Carag). 54 In this regard, the presentation of PO3 Carag as a witness was inconsequential since he assumed responsibility as evidence custodian only on 14 August 2013. 55 Even if PO3 Carag mentioned the name of PO3 Edison Talattad 56 as the evidence custodian who preceded him, the Court, without other basis, cannot conclude that he was the one to whom PSI Moskito gave the items. SDAaTC

Indubitably, the fourth link was not established. Ergo, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were tainted.

A final reflection. RA No. 9165 contains a saving clause allowing liberality whenever there are compelling reasons to otherwise warrant deviation from the established procedures so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The saving clause, however, applies only where the prosecution recognized the procedural lapses, and thereafter cited justifiable grounds. 57

The records failed to reveal that the PDEA agents offered any excuse for the deviation from the procedures mandated under RA No. 9165, or, if they did, the same was not justifiable. Given that there was non-compliance with Section 21, there can be no presumption that they regularly performed their official duties. The presumption of regularity cannot preponderate over the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. Since the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody, appellant's acquittal must perforce follow. 58

WHEREFORE, the Appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated 30 August 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10811 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Maverick Ibay y Binolan alias "Rick" is ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt. He is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention unless he is confined for some other lawful cause.

The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is DIRECTED to IMPLEMENT this Resolution immediately and to REPORT to this Court the action taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution. Copies shall also be furnished the Police General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information.

The Regional Trial Court of Tuguegarao City, Branch 02 is DIRECTED to turn over the seized sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride to the Dangerous Drugs Board for proper disposal in accordance with law.

Let an entry of judgment be ISSUED immediately.

SO ORDERED." (GAERLAN, J., recused himself due to prior participation in the Court of Appeals; MARQUEZ, J., designated as additional Member per Raffle dated 30 March 2022).

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. CA rollo, pp. 114-130. Penned by Associate Justice Remedios A Salazar-Fernando (now Presiding Justice) with Associate Justices Samuel H. Gaerlan (now an Associate Justice of this Court) and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi, concurring.

2. AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972 AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, approved on 7 June 2002.

3. CA rollo, pp. 62-63. See also Records of Criminal Case Nos. 15838 and 15839, pp. 1 and 2, respectively.

4. Records of Criminal Case No. 15838, p. 1.

5. Records of Criminal Case No. 15839, p. 2.

6. Records of Criminal Case Nos. 15838 and 15839, pp. 39 and 42, respectively.

7. Records of Criminal Case No. 15839, p. 35.

8. Joint Affidavit of Arrest, Original Records of Criminal Case No. 15838, pp. 6-8; TSN, 27 January 2015, pp. 4-14; TSN, 27 June 2016, pp. 4-22; TSN, 22 June 2015, pp. 5-34; TSN, 9 March 2015, pp. 3-14; TSN, 18 August 2014, pp. 4-8; 6 October 2015, pp. 5-9; TSN, 9 December 2016, pp. 3-16; and TSN, 23 May 2017, pp. 5-21.

9. Records of Criminal Case No. 15838, p. 15.

10. Id. at 9-10.

11. Id. at 18-20.

12. Records of Criminal Case Nos. 15838 and 15839, both p. 11.

13. Records of Criminal Case No. 15838, p. 12.

14. Id. at 13.

15. Records of Criminal Case No. 15839, p. 12.

16. Id.

17. Id., dorsal portion.

18. Id.

19. TSN dated 19 December 2017, pp. 4-11; Records of Criminal Case No. 15838, pp. 27-29.

20. TSN dated 17 November 2017, pp. 4-10; Records of Criminal Case No. 15838, p. 31.

21. CA rollo, pp. 62-70. See also Records of Criminal Case No. 15838, pp. 259-267.

22. Id. at 70; id. at 267.

23. Records of Criminal Case No. 15838, id. at 273.

24. CA rollo, pp. 43-58.

25. People v. Sorrera, G.R. No. 251110, 3 February 2021.

26. See People v. Dizon, G.R. No. 223562, 4 September 2019.

27. See People v. Areola, Jr y Casica, G.R. No. 251919, 12 May 2021.

28. See People v. Cuevas y Martinez, 842 Phil. 709, 716 (2018).

29. 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,' approved on 15 July 2014 and appears to have become effective on 7 August 2014, see People v. De Dios, G.R. No. 243664, 22 January 2020.

30. See Malmis y Regale v. People, G.R. No. 248676, 18 November 2021.

31. See People v. Nocum, G.R. No. 239905, 20 January 2021.

32. TSN, 9 March 2015, p. 23; TSN, 22 June 2015, p. 26.

33. TSN, 9 March 2015, p. 25.

34. See People v. Valdez y Rodaje, G.R. No. 255343, 28 July 2021.

35. See Supra at note 34.

36. See Supra at note 34.

37. See People v. Siddayao, Jr., G.R. No. 228882, 26 August 2020.

38. TSN, 9 December 2016, pp. 14-15.

39. Id. at 16-17.

40. See People v. Macaluma-Dolonan, G.R. No. 245925, 13 October 2021.

41. TSN, 22 June 2015, pp. 27-29.

42. TSN, 9 December 2016, p. 14.

43. See People v. Callejo, et al., 832 Phil. 881, 897-898 (2018). Emphases and underscoring omitted.

44. People v. De Vera, 837 Phil. 348, 370 (2018).

45. See People v. De Vera, G.R. No. 229364, 16 October 2019.

46. TSN, 9 December 2016, p. 15.

47. Id. at p. 16.

48. TSN, 6 October 2015, p. 5.

49. Original Records of Criminal Case No. 15838, pp. 9-10.

50. See People v. Manabat, G.R. No. 242947, 17 July 2019.

51. See People v. Rivera y Suarez, G.R. No. 252886, 5 March 2021.

52. Id.

53. TSN, 18 August 2014, p. 8.

54. See People v. Baltazar y Cabarubias, G.R. No. 229037, 29 July 2019.

55. TSN, 15 April 2014, p. 5.

56. Also referred to as SPO3 Talattad, TSN, 15 April 2014, p. 5.

57. See Supra at note 34.

58. Id.