FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 254185. September 29, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. JONATHAN ISIDRO y TEJERERO @ JONATHAN AND JAYSON ENANO y LATORE, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated September 29, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 254185 (People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee v. Jonathan Isidro y Tejerero @ Jonathan and Jayson Enano y Latore, accused-appellants).
This is an appeal by certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the July 11, 2019 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 11188. The CA affirmed the February 28, 2018 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 82 (RTC), in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-15-01165-CR, finding Jonathan Isidro y Tejerero (Isidro) and Jayson Enano y Latore (Enano; collectively, accused-appellants), guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Antecedents
Accused-appellants were charged with violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 in an information which reads:
That on or about the 29th day of January 2015, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping each other, without lawful authority, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport, or act as broker in the said transaction, a dangerous drug, to wit: zero point twelve (0.12) gram of white crystalline substance containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3
During arraignment on February 13, 2015, accused-appellants pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. 4 Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
PO3 Christopher Aquino (PO3 Aquino) testified that on January 29, 2015, at around 8:00 a.m., a confidential informant (CI) came to their office at Camp Karingal, Quezon City, and reported that a certain "Jonathan" was selling illegal drugs at the Herminigildo Compound at Barangay Sauyo, Novaliches, Quezon City. He told his Chief about the information and a meeting was called for the conduct of a buy-bust operation which was coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). PO3 Aquino was designated as the poseur-buyer. 5
In the evening, PO3 Aquino together with PCI Solis, 6 SPO3 Rodel Deogracias 7(SPO3 Deogracias), PO3 Ramon Addun, PO3 Reynaldo del Mundo, Jr., PO3 Noel Galemo, 8 PO1 Reyjel Nadura, and the CI proceeded to the target area. They alighted from the vehicle far from the area and PO3 Aquino walked with the CI. The other police officers positioned themselves where they could see Isidro from a distance. The CI called Isidro by cellphone. After a few minutes, Isidro arrived with a companion. The CI then introduced PO3 Aquino to Isidro as the buyer of shabu worth P500.00. Isidro received the money which he handed to his companion and then Isidro handed over the shabu. Afterwards, PO3 Aquino executed the pre-arranged signal and arrested Isidro. The other police officers rushed to where PO3 Aquino and Isidro stood and arrested his companion, Enano. 9
After the arrest, PO3 Aquino marked the recovered evidence with "CA-JPI-01-29-15." He likewise prepared an inventory and took photographs at the crime scene. The inventory was witnessed by Jun E. Tobias (Tobias) of SAKSI and Kagawad Simeon del Mundo (Kagawad del Mundo) of Barangay Sauyo, who also signed the document. 10
At the police station, PO3 Aquino showed the recovered item to PO3 Jun Pingol (PO3 Pingol) who then recorded it on the blotter. PO3 Pingol made the request for laboratory examination and the other documents for the arrest. The accused and the evidence were later turned over to the crime laboratory for the necessary laboratory tests. 11
PO3 Aquino admitted that he did not have any photograph showing the presence of the two (2) witnesses during the inventory, or any photograph of the witnesses with accused-appellants. He further admitted that there was no proof in the inventory to show that it was done on the actual date of arrest. He also testified that Enano did not sell shabu nor transacted with him in any way. He was only arrested because he was with Isidro. 12
SPO3 Deogracias corroborated the testimony of PO3 Aquino. On cross-examination, SPO3 Deogracias explained that he requested accused-appellants to sign the inventory of seized properties/items but he did not pursue it anymore because there was no lawyer present during that time. He likewise alleged that PO3 Aquino forgot to list the buy-bust money in the said inventory and also faulted PO3 Aquino for the mistake on the date indicated on the said document. 13
The prosecution and the defense stipulated on the testimonies of PCI Anamelisa Bacani (PCI Bacani) and PO3 Pingol, as follows:
With respect to PCI Bacani's testimony:
1. That PCI Anamelisa Bacani is a forensic chemist of the Philippine National Police;
2. That while on duty on January 29, 2015, she received a Request for Laboratory Examination. Together with the said request is a heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing undetermined quantity of white crystalline substance suspected to shabu with marking CA-JTI-01-29-15;
3. That upon receipt of the said specimen, she thereafter, conducted the requested laboratory examination and in connection therewith she submitted a Chemistry Report and an Initial Laboratory Receipt showing the specimen positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous [drug]; and
4. That she, thereafter, turned over the specimen to the Evidence Custodian and personally withdrew the same for the arraignment scheduled today.
With respect to PO3 Pingol's testimony:
1. That he was the police investigator assigned at Police Station 4 of the Quezon City Police District when a complaint against accused Jonathan Isidro and Jayson Enano who were both arrested for Violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. 9165 was referred to their office for investigation;
2. That in connection with the investigation he conducted, he prepared the following documents:
a. Request for Laboratory Examination;
b. Request for Drug Test Examination;
c. Joint Affidavit of Arrest;
d. Chain of Custody;
e. Letter [Inquest] Referral; and
f. Arrest and Booking Sheet.
3. That when the case was referred for investigation, he took only the possession of the specimen subject of the offense when the same was turned over to him by PO3 Christopher Aquino for documentation and recording purposes and thereafter returned it again to PO3 Aquino at around 8:45 PM as reflected in the Chain of Custody Form;
4. That when the evidence reached him, the same was already marked;
5. That he can identify both the accused; and
6. That he properly apprised the accused of their constitutional rights. 14
Version of the Defense
Enano testified that sometime in January 2015, he was watching a basketball game outside his house when a van arrived from which a gun-toting stranger alighted. The armed man ordered that none of the bystanders move. Some ran away but Enano simply positioned himself to the side where two (2) men approached and handcuffed him. They forcibly made him board the van and frisked him. Despite not finding anything, the men still questioned him. Afterwards, they all drove to Roque Compound where another man, Isidro, was also brought inside the van. They were then taken to the police station. Isidro's wife arrived at the station and talked to the police officers who demanded that they pay P50,000.00, otherwise criminal charges would be filed against them. Unable to pay the amount, accused-appellants were brought in for inquest proceedings. Enano claimed that until the arrest, he only knew Isidro by sight. He also denied selling dangerous drugs. 15
On the other hand, Isidro claimed that sometime in January 2015, at around 7:00 p.m., he went to a wake at Roque I Compound to ask his foreman if they still had to go to work the following day. While looking for his foreman, two (2) gun-wielding individuals arrived, handcuffed him, and then boarded him in a van where he met Enano. Similarly, Isidro denied the charge against him. 16
The RTC Ruling
In its February 28, 2018 Decision, the RTC found accused-appellants guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. It held that the prosecution was able to establish the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. It further ruled that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized evidence were preserved as the chain of custody had been faithfully observed. The fallo reads —
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Jonathan Isidro y Tejerero alias "Jonathan" and Jayson Enano y Latore "Guilty" beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165.
Accordingly, this Court sentences both the accused Jonathan Isidro y Tejerero alias "Jonathan" and Jayson Enano y Latore to suffer the penalty of Life Imprisonment and to each pay a Fine in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos without eligibility for parole in accordance with R.A. 9346.
The Branch Clerk of Court is hereby directed to transmit to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency the dangerous drug subject of this case for proper disposition and final disposal.
SO ORDERED. 17
The CA Ruling
In its July 11, 2019 Decision, the CA affirmed accused-appellants' conviction. It ruled that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. First, accused-appellants sold to PO3 Aquino, the poseur-buyer, a sachet of shabu for P500.00. Isidro received the P500.00 bill from PO3 Aquino. He then handed the P500.00 bill to Enano and gave PO3 Aquino a sachet of shabu. Second, PO3 Aquino received the sachet of shabu from Isidro. Moreover, the sachet of shabu marked as "CA-JTI-01-29-15" was presented in court by PSI Bacani, the forensic chemist who examined the contents of the seized sachet and confirmed the same to be positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. 18
The CA sustained the RTC's finding that the police officers were able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item from the moment the item was taken from accused-appellants until it was presented in court as evidence. It held that the police officers regularly performed their duties and that accused-appellants' defense of denial and alibi cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated 28 February 2018 rendered by Branch 82 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-15-01165-CR is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.19
Hence, this appeal.
Issues
Accused-appellants raised the following errors:
I.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS OF THE ILLEGAL SALE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS DESPITE THE POLICE OFFICERS' FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, AS AMENDED.
II.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS GUILTY OF THE ILLEGAL SALE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT A CLEAR AND UNBROKEN CHAIN OF CUSTODY OVER THE ALLEGEDLY CONFISCATED ITEM AND THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO ESTABLISH ITS EVIDENTIARY VALUE AND INTEGRITY. 20
Both accused-appellants and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) manifested that they were submitting the appeal for resolution on the strength of their briefs submitted before the CA.
In their Appellants' Brief 21 before the CA, accused-appellants assail the arresting officers' non-compliance with Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 by alleging that the seizure and marking of the seized drug were not witnessed by the insulating witnesses; and that the police officers made conflicting testimonies on where they marked and photographed the contraband. They also claim that the discrepancy in the date indicated in the inventory, "Jan. 30, 2015," indicates an irregularity since the buy-bust operation happened on January 29, 2015. Lastly, they argue that the prosecution failed to establish the fourth link in the chain of custody because the stipulation of the forensic chemist did not include measures taken to preserve and protect the integrity of the seized drug. 22
In its Appellee's Brief 23 before the CA, the OSG insists that the requirements of Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 were complied with, based on the testimony of PO3 Aquino that Tobias, a media representative, and Kagawad del Mundo, an elected official, witnessed the marking and inventory of the seized dangerous drug. The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug had not been compromised because every link in the chain of custody was satisfactorily accounted for. Furthermore, accused-appellants had stipulated on how the seized evidence was handled from its seizure until it was brought to the crime laboratory for examination; retrieved from the evidence custodian; and brought to the trial court during arraignment and pre-trial. Moreover, Enano's urine sample tested positive for shabu, indicating that he was "high" when he was arrested. 24 Thus, the trial court correctly gave credence to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses over that of accused-appellants. 25
The Court's Ruling
The Court finds the appeal meritorious.
To sustain a conviction for the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, it is essential that the identity of the seized drug be established with moral certainty; and it must be proven with exactitude that the substance bought during the buy-bust operation is exactly the same substance offered in evidence before the court. 26 This requirement is known as the chain of custody rule under R.A. No. 9165, created to safeguard doubts concerning the identity of the seized drugs. 27
Chain of custody means the duly recorded, authorized movements, and custody of the seized drugs at each state, from the moment of confiscation to the receipt in the forensic laboratory for examination, until it is presented to the court. 28
As part of the chain of custody procedure, the law requires that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation of the same. 29 The law further requires that the said inventory and photography be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of R.A. No. 9165 by R.A. No. 10640, 30 a representative from the media AND the DOJ, and any elected public official; 31 or (b) if after the amendment of R.A. No. 9165 by R.A. No. 10640, an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service (NPS), 32OR the media. 33 The law requires the presence of these witnesses primarily "to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence." 34
In the instant case, since the offense charged was committed on January 29, 2015, the provisions of Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, shall apply. Thus, the two (2) witnesses mandated by law to be present during the inventory and taking of photographs must be complied with.
The prosecution failed to
To ensure the integrity of the seized drug items, the prosecution must account for each link in its chain of custody: first, the seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court. 35
In here, the prosecution failed to establish the first and fourth links in the chain of custody.
The Court notes of an irregularity in the inventory of seized properties/items prepared by the apprehending officers. Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 10640 requires that the copies of the inventory should be signed by the following persons: accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the NPS or the media. However, the inventory of seized properties/items submitted by the prosecution was not signed by accused-appellants or by their counsel or representative. To recall, SPO3 Deogracias narrated that he no longer asked for accused-appellants to sign the inventory because of the absence of any lawyer at that time. However, there is no requirement for a counsel to be present when an accused signs the inventory. Thus, the explanation of SPO3 Deogracias on the absence of accused-appellants' signature is not a valid excuse and must be rejected.
Moreover, the marking of the plastic sachets with "CA-JTI-01-29-15" did not comply with paragraph 2.35, Sec. 2-6 of the Revised Philippine National Police (PNP) Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operation and Investigation, which provides:
2.35. The Seizing Officer must mark the evidence with his initials indicating therein the date, time and place where the evidence was found/recovered or seized. 36
Thus, the marking "CA-JTI-01-29-15," as shown in the photographs of the seized plastic sachet, failed to indicate the time and place of the purported buy-bust operation, and clearly deviated from the PNP's own set of procedures in conducting such operations.
Anent the insulating witnesses, the failure of the prosecution to provide the circumstances of the arrival of the former at the scene of the crime was fatal to its cause. Such failure creates suspicion as to whether the insulating witnesses actually saw the apprehension of accused-appellants. The testimony of PO3 Aquino proved only that the insulating witnesses were present during the inventory of the seized items. The Court has held that the presence of the required number of witnesses at the time of the apprehension and inventory is mandatory, and that their presence serves an essential purpose. 37 In People v. Tomawis, 38 the Court held:
The presence of the three witnesses must be secured not only during the inventory but more importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest. It is at this point in which the presence of the three witnesses is most needed, as it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug. If the buy-bust operation is legitimately conducted, the presence of the insulating witnesses would also controvert the usual defense of frame-up as the witnesses would be able to testify that the buy-bust operation and inventory of the seized drugs were done in their presence in accordance with Section 21 of RA 9165.
The practice of police operatives of not bringing to the intended place of arrest the three witnesses, when they could easily do so — and "calling them in" to the place of inventory to witness the inventory and photographing of the drugs only after the buy-bust operation has already been finished — does not achieve the purpose of the law in having these witnesses prevent or insulate against the planting of drugs.
To restate, 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 seized and confiscated drugs "immediately after seizure and confiscation." 39
Moreover, in People v. Castillo, 40 the Court held that having third-party witnesses present only during the subsequent physical inventory and photographing renders the whole requirement of their presence futile. For it reduces them to passive automatons, utilized merely to lend hollow legitimacy by belatedly affixing signatures on final inventory documents despite lacking authentic knowledge on the items confronting them. 41
Finally, the fourth link involves the submission of the seized drugs by the forensic chemist to the court when presented as evidence in the criminal case. 42 In People v. Angeles, 43 the Court acquitted the appellant due to the inadequate stipulations as to the testimony of the forensic chemist, to wit:
Clearly, the third and fourth links in the chain of custody are sorely lacking. PO2 Saez's lone testimony leaves several questions unanswered. What happened to the drugs from the time Relos received it from PO2 Saez until it was eventually transmitted to the forensic chemist for examination? Were there other persons who came into contact with the drugs before the forensic chemist subjected it to examination? Who handed the drugs to the forensic chemist? How did Relos and the forensic chemist handle the drugs? Who ultimately transmitted the drugs seized from Angeles to the trial court to be used as evidence against him? The necessary details to prove the preservation of the integrity of the drugs recovered from Angeles remain a mystery. All these are left open to the realm of possibilities such that the evidentiary value of drugs presented in court was unduly prejudiced; considering that it cannot be said with certainty that the drugs were never compromised or tampered with.
While it is true that the credible and positive testimony of a single prosecution witness is sufficient to warrant a conviction, PO2 Saez's testimony is not enough. In the case at bar, the parties only stipulated the qualifications of the forensic chemist. Such stipulation is severely limited because it does not cover the manner as to how the specimen was handled before and after it came to the possession of the forensic chemist. 44
In this case, the parties stipulated on the testimony of PCI Bacani. However, there was neither stipulation nor testimony from PCI Bacani on how she safeguarded the seized item from being altered or substituted, after receiving the same, and following her qualitative examination, including the period prior to her appearance in court. Absent any testimony on the management, storage, and preservation of the illegal drug allegedly seized after its qualitative examination, the fourth link in the chain of custody could not be reasonably established. 45 Failure to establish this link casts serious doubts on the identity and the integrity of the corpus delicti.
In sum, the integrity and evidentiary value of the item purportedly seized from accused-appellants had been compromised because of these significant gaps in the chain of custody. These uncertainties on the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti warrant the acquittal of accused-appellants based on reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The July 11, 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 11188, which affirmed the February 28, 2018 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 82, in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-15-01165-CR, finding accused-appellants Jonathan Isidro y Tejerero and Jayson Enano y Latore guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellants are ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Director General of the New Bilibid Prison, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ORDERED to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE accused-appellants from detention, unless they are being lawfully held in custody for any other reason, and to INFORM this Court of his action hereon within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 4-22; penned by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos, with Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Danton Q. Bueser, concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 48-62; penned by Presiding Judge Lyn Ebora-Cacha.
3.Id. at 48.
4.Id. at 48-49.
5.Id. at 50.
6. First name not mentioned in the rollo and records.
7. Also referred to as SPO2 Rodel Deogracias in some parts of the records.
8. Also referred to as PO3 Noel Galeno in some parts of the records.
9. CA rollo, p. 50.
10.Id.
11.Id.
12.Id. at 51.
13.Id. at 52.
14.Rollo, pp. 6-7.
15.Id. at 9.
16.Id.
17. CA rollo, pp. 61-62.
18.Rollo, p. 13.
19.Id. at 21-22.
20. CA rollo, p. 38.
21.Id. at 33-46.
22.Id. at 39-44.
23.Id. at 70-86.
24.Id. at 74-84.
25.Rollo, p. 12.
26.People v. Alon-Alon, G.R. No. 237803, November 27, 2019, citing People v. Bartolini, 791 Phil. 626, 720 (2016).
27.People v. Climaco, 687 Phil. 593, 604 (2012), citing People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 226 (2015).
28. Section 1 (b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002.
29.Matabilas v. People, G.R. No. 243615, November 11, 2019.
30. Entitled "An Act to Further Strengthen the Anti-Drug Campaign of the Government, Amending for the Purpose Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, Otherwise Known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002." As the Court noted in People v. Gutierrez (see G.R. No. 236304, November 5, 2018, 884 SCRA 276) and Matabilas v. People (supra note 29), R.A. No. 10640 was approved on July 15, 2014. Under Section 5 thereof, it shall "take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation." R.A. No. 10640 was published on July 23, 2014 in The Philippine Star (Vol. XXVIII, No. 359, Philippine Star Metro section, p. 21) and Manila Bulletin (Vol. 499, No. 23; World News section, p. 6). Thus, R.A. No. 10640 appears to have become effective on August 7, 2014.
31. See Sec. 21 (1) and (2), Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR.
32. Which falls under the DOJ. (See Sec. 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1275, entitled "Reorganizing the Prosecution Staff of the Department of Justice, Regionalizing the Prosecution Service, and Creating the National Prosecution Service" [April 11, 1978] and Sec. 3 of R.A. No. 10071, entitled "An Act Strengthening and Rationalizing the National Prosecution Service" otherwise known as the " Prosecution Service Act of 2010" [lapsed into law on April 8, 2010]).
33. See Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640.
34.Matabilas v. People, supra note 29.
35.Jocson v. People, G.R. No. 199644, June 19, 2019, 904 SCRA 537, 548, citing People v. Dahil, supra note 27, at 231.
36. Revised PNP Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operation and Investigation, September 2014.
37. See People v. Arellaga, G.R. No. 231796, August 24, 2020, citing People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 234151, December 5, 2018, 888 SCRA 604, 622.
38. 830 Phil. 385 (2018).
39.Id. at 409.
40. G.R. No. 238339, August 7, 2019.
41.Id.
42.People v. Dahil, supra note 27, at 237.
43. 833 Phil. 822 (2018).
44.Id. at 836, as cited in People v. Labadan, G.R. No. 237769, March 11, 2019.
45.People v. Ubungen, 836 Phil. 888, 902 (2018).