People v. Jesual

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 246506. May 3, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. HARESH JESUAL, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated May 3, 2021 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 246506 (People of the Philippines v. Haresh Jesual). — Before the Court is a Petition for Certiorari1 filed by accused-appellant Haresh Jesual (Jesual) of the Decision 2 dated January 28, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08425. The CA affirmed the Joint Judgment 3 dated June 2, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bangui, Ilocos Norte, Branch 19 in Criminal Case Nos. 2207-19, 2208-19, and 2240-19. The dispositive portion of the Joint Judgment of the RTC provides:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused Haresh E. Jesual, having been found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Sections 5 and 11 Article II of RA 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), is hereby sentenced as follows:

a) In Criminal Case No. 2207-19 (Violation of Section 5, Article II, RA 9165) accused Haresh Jesual is sentenced to suffer the indivisible penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php500,000.00);

b) In Criminal Case No. 2208-19 (Violation of Section 11, Article II, RA 9165) accused Haresh Jesual is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine of Php300,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment.

The penalties for imprisonment in both cases for accused Haresh Jesual shall be served simultaneously.

c) In Criminal Case No. 2240-19 (Violation of Republic Act 105961 or otherwise known the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunitions Act) accused Haresh E. Jesual is hereby found Not Guilty and is hereby ACQUITTED based on reasonable doubt.

The dangerous drugs as well as the firearm subject matter of the three (3) instant cases are hereby ordered confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government (Sec. 20, RA 9165) to be disposed in accordance with the provisions of Section 21 of the same Act.

SO ORDERED. 4

Jesual was charged with the following: (1) violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002; (2) violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165; and (3) violation of R.A. 10591, or the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act, in three separate Informations which respectively state: HESIcT

I. For violation of Section 5, Article II of RA No. 9165 (Criminal Case No. 2207-19)

That on or about May 19, 2014, in the municipality of Pagudpud, province of Ilocos Norte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly sell one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride commonly known as "shabu," a dangerous drug, weighing 0.0380 gram (SCHJ1) worth Php1,000.00 to an agent of the Provincial Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Group (PAIDSOTG) acting as poseur-buyer, without any authority or license from the appropriate government agency to do so.

CONTRARY TO LAW: 5

II. For violation of Section 11, Article II of RA No. 9165 (Criminal Case No. 2208-19)

That on or about May 19, 2014, in the municipality of Pagudpud, province of Ilocos Norte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly have in his possession, control and custody twelve (12) pieces of transparent plastic sachets each containing methamphetamine hydrochloride commonly known as "shabu," a dangerous drug with an aggregate weight of 0.4614 gram, without the necessary license or authority from the appropriate government agency or authority to do so.

CONTRARY TO LAW: 6

III. For violation of RA No. 10591 (Criminal Case No. 2040-19)

That on or about May 19, 2014, in the municipality of Pagudpud, Ilocos Norte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession, control and custody one (1) pistol cal. 45 NORINCO bearing Serial No. 8803774-09-241 with chambered ammunition containing eight (8) live ammunitions and one (1) holster, without first securing the necessary license or authority to possess the same from appropriate government agency.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 7

Jesual was arraigned on October 13, 2014 and pleaded not guilty. 8 During the pre-trial on November 20, 2014, the parties entered into the following stipulations: (1) that the incident happened on May 19, 2014 in Poblacion 2, Pagudpud, Ilocos Norte particularly at a vulcanizing shop; and (2) that the accused was at said place on same above stated date. 9

Plaintiff-appellee presented the following persons as its witnesses: (1) PO1 Sonny Cuaresma (PO1 Cuaresma); (2) PO1 Mario Rigos (PO1 Rigos); and (3) PSI Amiely Ann Navarro (PSI Navarro). 10 Plaintiff-appellee averred that on May 19, 2014, PSI Adriano Licudan, Jr. (PSI Licudan, Jr.), as the team leader of the Provincial Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Group (PAIDSOTG), formed a buy-bust team after receiving a tip from an informant. 11 PO1 Sonny Cuaresma (PO1 Cuaresma) was designated as the poseur-buyer while PO3 Sygman Benigno (PO3 Benigno), PO2 Elison Pasamonte (PO2 Pasamonte), and PO1 Rigos were designated as the arresting officers. 12 PSI Licudan, Jr. conducted an initial briefing at 5:30 a.m. on the same day in the office of the PAIDSOTG, Camp Valentin S. Juan, Laoag City. 13 PO1 Cuaresma marked a P1,000.00 bill with his initials "SC" which they will use for the buy-bust operation. 14

After the briefing, the buy-bust team picked up the informant at Brgy. Baduang, Pagudpud, Ilocos Norte. PSI Licudan, Jr., PO3 Benigno, and PO2 Pasamonte were on board a Toyota Corolla while PO1 Cuaresma and PO1 Rigos were on board a Kia van. PSI Licudan, Jr. conducted another briefing inside the Kia van for the buy-bust team and the informant. Upon the instruction of PSI Licudan, Jr., the informant texted Jesual that he wanted to order shabu worth P1,000.00. Jesual agreed and told the informant that he will leave his cellphone and proceed to a vulcanizing shop to have the flat tires of his motorcycle repaired. PSI Licudan, Jr., PO3 Benigno, PO2 Pasamonte, and PO1 Rigos remained in the Kia van and parked it across Curammeng's vulcanizing shop. PO1 Cuaresma and the informant used the Toyota Corolla and parked near the shop. 15

When PO1 Cuaresma and the informant entered the shop, they saw a man wearing a yellow shirt. The informant told PO1 Cuaresma that this was Jesual. When they reached Jesual, he asked the informant if PO1 Cuaresma was the one he was referring to. He told PO1 Cuaresma that he has to pay first and asked where the payment is. PO1 Cuaresma handed him the marked money. Jesual placed it in his pocket and withdrew one plastic sachet containing white crystalline granules. He handed it over to PO1 Cuaresma who then took off his bull cap to signify the consummation of the sale. 16

The rest of the buy-bust team rushed to the scene. 17 PO1 Rigos handcuffed Jesual and informed him of his constitutional rights. 18 PO1 Cuaresma searched his body and recovered a Fortune cigarette box containing 12 plastic sachets bearing white crystalline substance, one caliber .45 pistol with a fully loaded magazine tucked in his shorts, 19 the marked money, and P300.00. 20 Personal belongings and seven live ammunitions for the caliber .45 pistol were recovered from Jesual's motorcycle. PO1 Cuaresma marked the sachet subject of the sale as "SCHJ1" and the sachets recovered from Jesual as "SCHJ2" to "SCHJ13" 21 as well as conducted an inventory in the presence of Barangay (Brgy.) Kagawads (Kgwd.) Rosendo Lagundino (Lagundino) and Rogelio Villanueva (Villanueva). PO1 Rigos took photographs of the confiscated items. Afterwards, the buy-bust team proceeded to the municipal police station. PO1 Cuaresma retained custody of the seized items. 22

At the office of the PAIDSOTG, PO1 Cuaresma prepared the request for laboratory examination. PO1 Cuaresma brought the request and the seized items to the crime laboratory where it was received by PSI Navarro, a forensic chemist. PSI Navarro conducted an examination on the seized items and found that they all contained methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu, a dangerous drug. 23 PSI Navarro stated her findings in Chemistry Report No. D-119-2014-N. 24 After the examination, she placed the specimens in a transparent plastic bag sealed with a masking tape & marked it. She turned it over to SPO4 Nilo Domingo (SPO4 Domingo). PSI Navarro retrieved the seized items on January 15, 2015 when she was scheduled to appear in court. 25 caITAC

The parties dispensed with the testimony of SPO4 Domingo after they entered into the following stipulation of facts: (1) That SPO4 Domingo was the evidence custodian in the PNP Crime Laboratory when the specimens subject of these cases were submitted to the laboratory on May 19, 2014; (2) that he was the one who turned over the specimens to PSI Navarro for her examination at 11:55 p.m. on May 19, 2014; (3) that specimens were turned over to PSI Navarro on January 15, 2015, at 8 a.m., for the purpose of bringing it to court for its identification; and (4) that SPO4 Domingo has no personal knowledge of the origin of the specimens. 26

Jesual testified for his defense. He admitted that he was in Curammeng's vulcanizing shop on May 19, 2014 to have his tire repaired. While he was at the shop, a red car arrived. Its occupants alighted and introduced themselves as police officers, some of whom he was later able to identify as PO1 Cuaresma and PO1 Rigos. They pointed their gun at him and handcuffed him. 27 Jesual leaned his face down on a wooden toolbox. 28 When he asked them why they did that, the police officers placed a sachet of shabu and a firearm on the wooden toolbox. 29 They frisked him and searched his motorcycle. They confiscated two tablets, a cellphone, P15,000.00, and some clothing. The police officers marked the money and accomplished the inventory form. Brgy. officials subsequently arrived. 30 Charlie Nodalo (Nodalo) corroborated Jesual's testimony. He said he was also at the vulcanizing shop when the incident happened. He did not see any firearm that was recovered from Jesual. 31

In its June 2, 2016 Joint Judgment, 32 the RTC found Jesual guilty of violation of Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. 9165 and sentenced him with the following penalties: (1) for violation of Section 5, life imprisonment and payment of a fine of P500,000.00; and (2) for violation of Section 11, imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and payment of a fine of P300,000.00. The RTC acquitted him on the charge of violating R.A. 10591 due to reasonable doubt. 33

The RTC held that all the elements for violation of Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. 9165 were established in this case. With respect to Section 5, PO1 Cuaresma testified that he purchased one sachet of shabu from Jesual for P1,000.00. Jesual gave him the sachet after he gave his payment. 34 The result of the laboratory examination confirmed that the sachet indeed contained shabu. The marked money was likewise presented as evidence. 35 As for Section 11, PO1 Cuaresma also testified that he recovered 12 sachets of shabu from Jesual after frisking him. 36 The examination confirmed that the contents of the sachets are shabu. 37 PO1 Rigos corroborated PO1 Cuaresma's testimony. 38 Jesual was unable to prove that the police officers acted in bad faith or had an ill motive against him. 39

The RTC also ruled that there was substantial compliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165. Based on the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses, the seized items were marked and inventoried at the place of arrest in the presence of brgy. officials and Jesual. A certificate of inventory and photographs of the seized items were presented in court. PO1 Cuaresma had custody of all the seized items after they were taken from Jesual. He turned it over to PSI Navarro for examination. 40 After the examination, PSI Navarro turned it over to SPO4 Domingo for safekeeping. She only retrieved it when she brought it with her to court. 41 PO1 Cuaresma and PSI Navarro identified the sachets in court. Thus, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. 42

With respect to the charge of violation of R.A. 10591, the RTC held that none of the prosecution's witnesses testified on what happened to the firearm and ammunition after these were confiscated from Jesual. 43 This made it doubtful that the firearm and ammunition presented in court were the same ones recovered from Jesual. 44 In addition, the certification from the firearms and explosive unit of the Philippine National Police was not identified by anyone in court. Hence, the RTC could not consider it as evidence that Jesual was not authorized to possess the firearm and ammunition recovered from him. 45

Jesual appealed to the CA.

The CA affirmed the Joint Judgment of the RTC in its January 28, 2019 Decision, 46 the dispositive portion of which states:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED.

Accordingly, the assailed Joint Judgment dated 02 June 2016 of the Regional Trial Court, First Judicial Region, Branch 19, Bangui, Ilocos Norte in Criminal Case Nos. 2207-19 and 2208-19 finding appellant Haresh Jesual guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violations of Section 5 and 11, [Article II] of R.A. 9165 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED. 47 (Emphasis and italics in the original)

The CA concurred with the RTC that all the elements for violation of Sections 5 and 11 of RA No. 9165 were established in this case. 48 The testimony of PO1 Cuaresma proved that Jesual sold a sachet of shabu to him worth P1,000.00. Jesual also had in his possession 12 sachets of shabu. 49 PSI Navarro confirmed that the contents of the sachets were shabu. Jesual did not disprove that he had animus possidendi over the sachets or showed that he was authorized to possess it. 50 The CA did not find any untrustworthy or implausible statement in PO1 Cuaresma's testimony. 51 There is no evidence showing that the police officers here did not perform their duties in a regular manner. 52 In fact, Jesual did not accuse plaintiff-appellee's witnesses of having an improper or malicious motive that would have justified any doubts on their credibility. 53

The CA further agreed that there was substantial compliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165 in this case. PO1 Cuaresma marked the pieces of evidence at the place of arrest. The physical inventory and photographs of the seized items were taken in the presence of Jesual, Brgy. Kgwd. Lagundino, and Brgy. Kgwd. Villanueva. PO1 Cuaresma was in possession of the confiscated items until they reached the police station where the request for laboratory examination was prepared. PO1 Cuaresma brought the items to the Ilocos Norte Crime Laboratory where it was examined and yielded a positive result for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride. The seized items were offered as evidence in court. Hence, the integrity of the seized specimens of drugs was preserved. 54 ICHDca

The CA upheld the penalties imposed by the RTC because these were consistent with what is provided for in R.A. 9165 and Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the "Indeterminate Sentence Law." 55

Jesual filed a Petition for Certiorari before this Court to assail the ruling of the CA. The Court resolved to treat Jesual's petition as an ordinary appeal and required the parties to file their respective supplemental briefs. 56 Plaintiff-appellee manifested that it will no longer submit a supplemental brief because it had amply discussed its position in its appellee's brief before the CA. 57

Jesual argued in his petition that first, plaintiff-appellee's version of what transpired is unbelievable. The police officers formed a buy-bust team without conducting a surveillance to verify whether the informant's tip is true. It is also preposterous that the sale of prohibited items took place in a public setting. Moreover, Nodalo confirmed that a buy-bust operation did not take place in the vulcanizing shop on May 19, 2014. 58Second, the chain of custody was not established in this case. PO1 Cuaresma, the apprehending officer, did not turn over the seized items to the investigating officer for proper investigation and preparation of necessary documents. Instead, PO1 Cuaresma retained custody over the seized items and transferred it to the forensic chemist, PSI Navarro. 59

Plaintiff-appellee retorted in its Brief 60 that first, the Court has previously ruled that the absence of a prior surveillance does not affect the legality of a buy-bust operation. Second, the testimonies of PO1 Cuaresma and PO1 Rigos disprove Jesual's claim that it was unbelievable that a sachet of shabu will be sold at a vulcanizing shop. PO1 Cuaresma and PO1 Rigos' testimonies established that Jesual was arrested in flagrante delicto for selling illegal drugs worth P1,000.00 to PO1 Cuaresma during a buy-bust operation in the vulcanizing shop. 61 The RTC grave credence to their testimonies. The fact that a buy-bust operation was conducted in the shop was also proven by the Coordination Form, Pre-Operational Report, Certificate of Inventory, and the photographs. There is no reason to depart from the findings of the RTC because there is no significant facts or circumstances which were overlooked or disregarded that would alter the outcome of the case. Plaintiff-appellee thus prayed for the affirmation of the ruling of the RTC. 62

The sole issue before this Court is whether the CA erred in upholding the conviction of Jesual for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. 9165.

The appeal is meritorious.

The corpus delicti in this case are the following: (1) for violation of Section 5 of R.A. 9165, the sachet of shabu weighing 0.0380 gram and marked as "SCHJ1"; and (2) for violation of Section 11 of R.A. 9165, 12 sachets of shabu weighing a total of 0.4614 gram and respectively marked as "SCHJ2" to "SCJH13." All the sachets were offered as Exhibit L. 63 To ensure the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of these items, compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is imperative. This is especially true in this case because the amount of drugs involved is miniscule. 64 The provision states:

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;

xxx xxx xxx

Section 21 is a matter of substantive law and cannot be disregarded as an impediment to the conviction of illegal drug suspects. It is not simply a procedural technicality. 65 Any perceived deviations from Section 21 must be acknowledged and justified by the prosecution. 66 In addition, it must be shown that: (1) there is a justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 67 The justification must likewise be proven as a fact. 68

Section 21 of R.A. 9165 requires the presence of three witnesses during the conduct of the inventory of the seized dangerous drugs, namely: (1) a representative from the DOJ; (2) a representative from the media; and (3) an elected public official. In fact, the Court held in People v. Tomawis69 that when what is involved is a buy-bust operation, these witnesses must be present when the items are seized. The Court opined that it is easy to comply with the three-witness rule in a buy-bust operation because it is a planned activity. The buy-bust team has enough time and opportunity to bring the witnesses. 70 In this case, there were no witnesses when the items were seized from Jesual. And when the inventory was conducted, only elected public officials were present, namely Brgy. Kgwd. Lagundino and Brgy. Kgwd. Villanueva. Clearly, Section 21 was not complied with. TCAScE

As previously stated, deviations from Section 21 may be excused if there is a justifiable ground for it, that the justification is proven as a fact, and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. Plaintiff-appellee did not offer any justification for the failure to secure the presence of the witnesses from the media and the DOJ. It was not even shown by plaintiff-appellee that an attempt was made to secure their presence. It cannot be disregarded that what is involved here is a buy-bust operation. PO1 Cuaresma testified that on May 18, 2014, PSI Licudan, Jr. called him to inform him that they will conduct a buy-bust operation against Jesual. 71 Hence, the police officers in this case were well-aware that they were going to conduct a buy-bust operation on May 19, 2014. They had time to prepare for it. And yet it appears that they did not even attempt to ensure that the witnesses required under Section 21 of R.A. 9165 will be present during their operation. Given the foregoing, the Court cannot overlook or excuse their failure to comply with Section 21 of R.A. 9165.

In addition, there is a gap in the chain of custody in this case. Chain of custody refers to the "duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction." 72 It is a method of authenticating evidence which requires the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. The links in the chain of custody that must be established are: (1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the seized illegal drug by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover of the illegal drug by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turnover and submission of the illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court. 73 The problem here is the turnover of the seized items to the forensic chemist. PO1 Cuaresma testified that he turned over the seized items to PSI Navarro. 74 PSI Navarro likewise said that she received the seized items from PO1 Cuaresma. 75 The Request for Laboratory Examination also shows that it was received by PSI Navarro on May 19, 2014, at 3:20 p.m. 76 However, during the hearing on January 25, 2016, the parties stipulated that SPO4 Domingo was the one who turned over the specimens to PSI Navarro for examination on May 19, 2014. 77 Therefore, plaintiff-appellee was inconsistent as to who turned over the seized items to PSI Navarro, whether it was PO1 Cuaresma or SPO4 Domingo. Consequently, there is a gap in the chain of custody.

Another gap in the chain of custody is the turn over of the specimens from PSI Navarro to the evidence custodian as well as the turn over of the specimens to PSI Navarro for its submission to court. PSI Navarro did not identify in her testimony the person to whom she turned over the specimens to after she conducted her examination. Plaintiff-appellee did not show where and how the specimens were stored thereafter. It also failed to establish the person from whom PSI Navarro retrieved the specimens before bringing it to court. The parties only stipulated that the specimens "were eventually turned over to said PSI Navarro on January 15, 2015 at about 8:00 o'clock in the morning for purposes of bringing the same to the court for their identification." 78 Clearly, this stipulation is not enough to establish the turn over of the specimens from PSI Navarro to the evidence custodian and its subsequent turn over to PSI Navarro for her submission of said specimens to the court.

Plaintiff-appellee failed to show compliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165 and provide a justifiable ground for such failure. Accordingly, the Court cannot give credence to the evidence submitted by plaintiff-appellee. Its integrity and evidentiary value are doubtful. As such, Jesual must be acquitted.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated January 28, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08425 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Haresh Jesual is ACQUITTED of the crimes charged against him and is ORDERED to be IMMEDIATELY RELEASED, unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to inform this Court of the action taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt hereof. cTDaEH

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. 4-18.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (now a Member of this Court); id. at 20-35.

3. Penned by Presiding Judge Rosemarie V. Ramos; id. at 36-66.

4.Id. at 65.

5. Records (Criminal Case No. 2207-19), pp. 1-2.

6. Records (Criminal Case No. 2208-19), pp. 1-2.

7.Rollo, p. 22.

8. Records (Criminal Case No. 2207-19), p. 35; records (Criminal Case No. 2208-19), p. 33.

9.Id. at 38-39.

10.Id. at 38.

11.Rollo, p. 22.

12.Id. at 38.

13.Id. at 41-42.

14.Id. at 23.

15.Id.

16.Id.

17.Id.

18.Id. at 47.

19.Id. at 23.

20.Id. at 23-24.

21.Id. at 57.

22.Id. at 24.

23.Id.

24. Records (Criminal Case No. 2207-19), p. 18.

25.Rollo, p. 59.

26. Records (Criminal Case No. 2208-19), p. 114.

27.Rollo, p. 24.

28.Id. at 40.

29.Id. at 24-25.

30.Id. at 40.

31.Id. at 41.

32.Supra note 3.

33.Rollo, p. 65.

34.Id. at 41, 45.

35.Id. at 47.

36.Id. at 49.

37.Id. at 49-50.

38.Id. at 45, 49.

39.Id. at 63.

40.Id. at 56-57.

41.Id. at 59.

42.Id. at 57.

43.Id. at 61.

44.Id. at 62.

45.Id. at 63.

46.Supra note 2.

47.Rollo, p. 34.

48.Id. at 26, 29.

49.Id. at 26, 30.

50.Id. at 30.

51.Id. at 29.

52.Id. at 31-32.

53.Id. at 32.

54.Id. at 31.

55.Id. at 34.

56.Id. at 87.

57.Id. at 88-89.

58.Id. at 8-9.

59.Id. at 10-11.

60. CA rollo, pp. 81-90.

61.Id. at 88.

62.Id. at 89.

63. Records (Criminal Case No. 2207-19), p. 156.

64.People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78 (2014).

65.People v. Miranda, 824 Phil. 1042, 1059 (2018).

66.People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.

67.Limbo v. People, G.R. No. 238299, July 1, 2019.

68.People v. Gamboa, G.R. No. 233702, June 20, 2018.

69. 830 Phil. 385 (2018).

70.Id. at 105.

71. TSN dated September 10, 2015, p. 3.

72.People v. Tomawis, supra note 69, citing Section 1 (b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002.

73.People v. Holgado, supra note 64.

74. TSN dated September 10, 2015, p. 10.

75. TSN dated January 15, 2015, p. 5.

76. Records (Criminal Case No. 2207-19), p. 16.

77.Id. at 130.

78. Records (Criminal Case No. 2208-19), p. 114.