SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 238342. April 27, 2022.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. RAMON JULIANO y CORDERO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 27 April 2022 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 238342 (People of the Philippines v. Ramon Juliano y Cordero). — This resolves the appeal 1 filed by accused-appellant Ramon Juliano y Cordero (accused-appellant), challenging the September 20, 2017 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 08539, which affirmed the August 25, 2016 Joint Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City, Branch 127 in Criminal Case Nos. C-90107 and C-90108, finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sections 5 and 15, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, 4 otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
The Factual Antecedents
Accused-appellant was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 in Criminal Case No. C-90107 under the following Information, 5 the accusatory portion of which provides:
That on or about the 4th day of June, 2013 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there wilfully (sic), unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to PO2 JOEL ROSALES, who posed as buyer, One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet later marked as "RJ/JR (BUY BUST) 06-04-13" with signature containing METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (Shabu) weighing 0.02 gram, which when subjected for laboratory examination gave POSITIVE result to the tests for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, and knowing the same to be such.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
Accused-appellant was also charged with violation of Section 15, Article II of RA 9165 in Criminal Case No. C-90108 in an Information 7 which partly reads:
That on or about the 4th day of June, 2013 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously use METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (Shabu), knowing the same to be such, and when subjected to confirmatory examination, gave POSITIVE result to the test for the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 8
Upon his arraignment, accused-appellant, while assisted by his counsel, pleaded not guilty to the charges. 9
Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
During trial, the prosecution presented Police Officer 1 Jerome Pascual (PO1 Pascual), Police Chief Inspector Sandra Decena Go (PCI Go), Police Officer 3 Joel Rosales (PO3 Rosales), Police Officer 2 Evan Santos (PO2 Santos), and Police Officer 3 Gilbert Soriano (PO3 Soriano) as its witnesses. CAacTH
Version of the Prosecution
On June 4, 2013, PO3 Rosales and Police Officer 3 Ferdinand Modina (PO3 Modina) were on duty at the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Group (SAID-SOTG), Caloocan City Police Station. In the morning of the same day, their regular confidential informant reported to PO3 Modina about the rampant selling of drugs along Guido-1, Maypajo, Caloocan City 10 by a certain "Mon."
Afterwards, a team was organized to conduct a buy-bust operation. Consequently, a briefing was conducted among PO3 Modina, PO3 Soriano, PO3 Pacis, PO2 Santos, and PO3 Rosales. PO3 Modina was the team leader, while PO3 Rosales was designated as the poseur-buyer, with PO2 Santos as back-up. The rest of their companions were the perimeter security. 11
PO3 Rosales was given a P200-bill 12 to be used as buy-bust money, where he placed his initials, "JR." Their pre-arranged signal was for PO3 Rosales to touch his nape to signify that the transaction was consummated. 13
The buy-bust team then proceeded to the target area on board a black Crosswind while accompanied by the confidential informant. They stopped at a nearby Mercury Drug for a final briefing. While thereat, PO3 Modina asked the confidential informant if alias Mon was there at the target place. The informant went to the area first and when he returned, he confirmed to PO3 Modina the presence of the target. 14
Afterwards, the buy-bust team proceeded to Guido-1 with PO3 Rosales and the confidential informant leading the group, while the other members of the team followed at a distance. Upon approaching accused-appellant, the confidential informant told him, "tol, kukuha ang tropa ko." Accused-appellant then asked, "ilan?," to which PO3 Rosales replied "dalawang daan lang, 'tol." The former then answered "sandali lang," and left for a while proceeding towards a small alley, and eventually returned after two to three minutes. PO3 Rosales then gave him the P200.00 marked buy-bust money. In exchange, accused-appellant handed PO3 Rosales a small heat-sealed plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance. 15
Thereafter, PO3 Rosales touched his nape, introduced himself as a police officer, and held the arm of accused-appellant. He then asked the latter about his full name, to which accused-appellant replied "Ramon Juliano." PO3 Rosales apprised accused-appellant of his rights and informed him of his violation. Furthermore, PO3 Rosales marked the plastic sachet at the place of arrest, with his initials "RJ/JR (BUY-BUST) 06-04-13"; and thereafter, they brought accused-appellant to their office at SAID-SOTG Caloocan City Police Station, where he was turned over to the investigator, PO1 Pascual. 16
At the station, PO1 Pascual prepared the Evidence Acknowledgement Receipt, 17 Chain of Custody Form, 18 Receipt of Physical Inventory, 19 and Arrest and Booking Sheet 20 of accused-appellant. The inventory was also conducted in the presence of accused-appellant and media representative Cherk Almadin. 21 Photographs 22 of the inventory proceeding, the accused-appellant, and the evidence were also taken. Likewise, PO1 Pascual prepared a Request 23 for the Laboratory Examination and for Drug Test. 24
PO3 Rosales accompanied accused-appellant and PO1 Pascual to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory in Camp Crame, Quezon City, where PO1 Pascual personally handed the evidence and accused-appellant's urine sample to the duty desk officer at the Crime Laboratory. At 1:35 a.m. of June 5, 2013, Forensic Chemist PCI Go received the evidence seized from the buy-bust operation and the urine sample and subjected the same to drug testing. The examination conducted on the specimen, as well as for the drug test of accused-appellant, both yielded positive results for shabu, per Initial Laboratory Report and Chemistry Report Nos. D-153-13 25 and DT-208-13, 26 both dated June 5, 2013. After the examination, the specimen was turned over to the Evidence Custodian for safekeeping. In view of the positive findings, PO3 Rosales executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay 27 and the Referral Slip 28 for inquest proceedings. Subsequently, accused-appellant was brought to the Prosecutor's Office for inquest. 29
PCI Go retrieved the seized drugs from the Evidence Custodian for its presentation to the trial court during her testimony. 30
PO2 Santos testified and corroborated PO3 Rosales regarding the incidents relating to the planning and conduct of the buy-bust operation. He narrated that he was a perimeter back-up, and as such, he secured the area during the transaction. Furthermore, he was able to see PO3 Rosales recover the shabu and the buy-bust money from accused-appellant. 31
PO3 Rosales testified in court for the prosecution, whose testimony was corroborated by PO2 Santos.
The parties stipulated on the testimony of PO1 Pascual that: (1) he was assigned as Investigator at the SAID-SOTG, Caloocan City Police Station on June 4, 2013; (ii) at 1:15 p.m. of June 4, 2013, he received for turnover the person of accused-appellant and the specimen consisting of one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance marked as "RJ/JR (BUY BUST) dated 06-04-13" with the signature of PO3 Rosales, the poseur buyer/arresting officer, which PO1 Pascual in turn placed in a sachet which he marked as "SAID SOTG EVIDENCE JULIANO 06-04-13"; (iii) he conducted an investigation on accused-appellant by interviewing him and encoding on the PNP Arrest and Booking Sheet, Inventory of Seized Evidence, as well as by taking his photographs and that of the seized evidence; (iv) PO1 Pascual thereafter referred the specimen for laboratory examination and accused-appellant for drug testing at the Crime Laboratory, and upon receipt of the results thereof, he filed the cases in the Office of the Prosecutor for inquest purposes; (v) the specimen was already marked when PO3 Rosales submitted the same to him; and (vi) PO1 Pascual could identify the person of accused-appellant, the pieces of evidence together with the buy-bust money turned over to him, as well as the documents prepared and submitted in connection with the filing of these cases. 32 IAETDc
With regard to the testimony of PCI Go, the parties stipulated that: (i) PCI Go is a Forensic Chemist assigned at the PNP Crime Laboratory Office, Chemistry Division, Camp Crame, Quezon City; (ii) she is an expert witness and is competent and qualified to testify; (iii) between 1:30 and 1:35 a.m. of June 5, 2013, she received the Request for Drug Test and the Request for Laboratory Examination, together with the specimen consisting of one piece heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of shabu marked RJ/JR (BUY BUST) dated 06-04-13, and the urine sample of accused-appellant for the conduct of qualitative screening confirmatory examination; (iv) she signed both requests as appearing at the stamped marks located at the bottom thereof; (v) she conducted the required examination on the specimen, marked the same, and prepared the Initial Laboratory Reports and Chemistry Reports Nos. D-153-13 and DT-208-13 embodying the results of the examination, which reports bear her signature; (vi) she gave a copy of the reports to the investigator, PO1 Pascual, and turned over the rest of the copies of the request, as well as the specimen, to the Evidence Custodian of their office, from whom she retrieved the same before coming to court to testify; and (vii) she could identify the requests she received, the reports she prepared, the markings on the specimen and her signatures appearing therein, as well as her signature on the Chain of Custody Form. 33
The parties likewise stipulated on the testimony of PO3 Soriano to the effect that: (i) there was an alleged buy bust operation conducted on June 4, 2013, where PO3 Rosales was designated as the poseur-buyer; (ii) PO3 Soriano, together with other officers such as PO2 Santos, were part of the team which conducted the buy bust operation; (iii) they were positioned in a strategic place, but they were able to see PO3 Rosales talking to accused-appellant; (iv) he was able to confirm that the transaction proceeded through the execution of the pre-arranged signal; and, (v) right after the execution of the pre-arranged signal, he rushed towards where the poseur buyer was.
Version of the Defense
On May 31, 2013, at around 4:00 p.m., accused-appellant and his partner, Maria Rosario Evangelista (Evangelista), were sleeping inside their house, when they were awakened by banging sounds on their door. When they peeped through the holes of their room, they saw armed individuals outside, who introduced themselves as police officers, and told them that they were running after a person. As they were dressing up, the police officers forcibly opened the door, then entered and searched the room. Thereafter, one of the police officers told accused-appellant, "ikaw yun," and handcuffed him. He and Evangelista were then brought to the Sangandaan Headquarters. 34
Evangelista sought assistance from her brother, Adrian Evangelista, who went to the police station the following day and gave the police officers P10,000.00 for her release. She thereafter sought help from accused-appellant's relatives and friends and was able to raise P3,000.00, which she also gave to the police officers. Accused-appellant, however, remained in detention. 35
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
In its August 25, 2016 Joint Decision, 36 the RTC found accused-appellant liable for violation of Sections 5 and 15, Article II of RA 9165. It held that all elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs are present and the chain of custody was properly observed. 37
Anent the charge for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the lower court found accused-appellant guilty of the same, but dispensed with his commitment to a drug rehabilitation center as he is deemed as drug-free in view of his detention since June 4, 2013. 38 Thus, the dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
In Criminal Case No. 90107, the Court finds the accused Ramon Juliano y Cordero @ Mon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of Section 5, Art. II, R.A. 9165 and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay the fine of Five Hundred pesos (sic) Thousand Pesos [P500,000.00] in accordance with law.
In Criminal Case No. 90108, the Court, likewise, finds the accused Ramon Juliano y Cordero @ "Mon" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of Section 15, Art. II, R.A. 9165 and considering that nothing on record would show that this is not the first time that he was found guilty of this instant offense, said accused is hereby sentenced to undergo at least Six [6] months rehabilitation at the DOH-Treatment and Rehabilitation Center, Camp Bagong Diwa, Bicutan, Taguig City.
However, records show that the said accused was under custody of the law since June 4, 2013 and is deemed to be drug-free taking the pronouncements in the case of People vs. Roselle Santiago that "At any rate, since she [accused Santiago] had been under detention at the Correctional Institute for Women since 2005 and presumably deprived of the use of illegal substance during her stay there, she should be deemed to have served the mandatory rehabilitation period that the RTC imposed on her [Feb. 2011/G.R. No. 191061], this Court hereby deems that accused Ramon Juliano y Cordero to be drug-free and is dispensed with his commitment at the said drug rehabilitation center.
The drug subject matter in Crim. Case No. 90107 is hereby ordered confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government and the Branch Clerk of Court of this Sala is directed to turn over the said evidence to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for its immediate destruction in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED. 39
Aggrieved with the trial court's ruling, accused-appellant filed an appeal 40 with the CA. DcHSEa
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
In its September 20, 2017 Decision, 41 the CA affirmed the findings of the RTC, the fallo of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The assailed Joint Decision dated August 25, 2016 of the RTC, Branch 127, Caloocan City in Criminal Case Nos. C-90107 and C-90108 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 42
Not in agreement with the CA's ruling, accused-appellant filed the instant appeal. 43
Issue
The fundamental issue in the instant case is whether or not accused-appellant is guilty of the charges.
Our Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
The presentation of the dangerous drugs as evidence in court is essential in the successful prosecution for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs because its identity must be established with moral certainty since this is the very corpus delicti of the crime. 44 Furthermore, the prosecution must prove that there has been an unbroken chain of custody over the dangerous drugs to erase any doubts as to its identity through switching, "planting" or contamination of evidence. 45 Each link in the chain of custody of evidence must be accounted for from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation as evidence in court. 46
The acts subject of this case were allegedly committed prior to the effectivity of RA 10640. 47 In order to preserve the chain of custody of evidence in drugs cases, Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, prior to its amendment by RA 10640, provides for the mandatory procedural safeguards in a buy-bust operation as follows:
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; (Emphasis supplied).
Similarly, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 further elaborates on the proper procedure to be followed in Section 21 (a) of RA 9165. It states:
(a) The apprehending office/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: 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, further that non-compliance with 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 of and custody over said items. (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, three witnesses are required to be present during the physical inventory and taking of photographs of the seized items, namely: a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official. 48 In the instant case, since the acts were allegedly committed prior to the effectivity of RA 10640, then three witnesses were required to be present during the physical inventory and photography of the seized items. However, in the case at bar, only a representative from the media was present.
In addition, Section 21 (a), Article II of the IRR of RA 9165 provides for the saving clause, which states that "[n]on-compliance 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." Hence, for this saving mechanism to apply, the following conditions must be met, viz.: (1) the prosecution must acknowledge or recognize the lapse/s in the prescribed procedure, and then provide justifiable reasons for said lapse/s, and (2) the prosecution must show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been properly preserved. 49 Thus, the prosecution must show the justifiable ground/s for failure to comply with the procedural safeguards mandated by the law. 50 SCaITA
In the absence of the witnesses required by law during the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items, the Court underscored in People v. Lim51 that —
It must be alleged and proved that the presence of the three witnesses (now two witnesses under RA 10640) to the physical inventory and photograph of the illegal drug seized was not obtained due to reason/s such as:
(1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf; (3) the elected official themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ or media representative and an elected public official within the period required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code proved futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or (5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations, which often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before the offenders could escape. 52(Emphasis in the original)
Thus, the prosecution must provide proof of earnest efforts to secure the attendance of these witnesses. As the Court explained in People v. Ramos: 53
It is well to note that the absence of these required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible. However, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses under Section 21 of RA 9165 must be adduced. In People v. Umipang, the Court held that the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under the law for "a sheer statement that representatives were unavailable without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look for other representatives, given the circumstances is to be regarded as a flimsy excuse." Verily, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance. These considerations arise from the fact that police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time — beginning from the moment they have received the information about the activities of the accused until the time of his arrest — to prepare for a buy-bust operation and consequently, make the necessary arrangements beforehand knowing full well that they would have to strictly comply with the set procedure prescribed in Section 21 of RA 9165. As such, police officers are compelled not only to state reasons for their non-compliance, but must in fact, also convince the Court that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedure, and that under the given circumstances, their actions were reasonable. 54(Emphasis in the original)
In the case at bar, the records indicate that only a representative of the media was present during the inventory and photography of the confiscated drugs, while an elected public official and a representative from the DOJ were both absent. We further note that the apprehending officers failed to show that earnest efforts were expended to procure the attendance of both the elected public official and representative from the DOJ. In fact, the prosecution failed to offer any justification for their absence.
The purpose of the law in requiring the presence of certain witnesses at the time of the seizure and inventory of the seized items, is to "insulate the seizure from any taint of illegitimacy or irregularity." 55 In People v. Sioson, 56 this Court reiterated that "[w]ithout the insulating presence of the three witnesses during the seizure and marking of the drugs, the evils of switching, "planting" or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-bust conducted under the regime of RA 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the seized drugs that were evidence of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of accused-appellant." As such, the insulating presence of such witnesses would preserve an unbroken chain of custody.
In the case at bar, the reliance of the police operatives on the lone witness, a media representative, and the apprehending team's failure to secure the presence of both an elected public official and a DOJ representative, without justifiable reasons and without exerting earnest efforts to do so, consequently rendered ineffective the purpose of the law, which is designed to provide an insulating presence during the inventory and photographing of the seized items in order to obviate switching, "planting" or contamination of the evidence. Needless to say, this adversely affected the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the sachets of shabu subject of this case. aTHCSE
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The September 20, 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 08539 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Ramon Juliano y Cordero is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for another lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The Director General is DIRECTED to report to this Court the action taken hereon within five days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED." (Perlas-Bernabe, S.A.J., on official leave; Hernando, J., Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2887 dated April 8, 2022)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 23-24.
2. CA rollo, pp. 112-132. Penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and concurred in by Associate Justices Mario V. Lopez and Jhosep Y. Lopez (now Members of the Court).
3. Records, pp. 186-204. Penned by Presiding Judge Victoriano B. Cabanos.
4. Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES." Approved: June 7, 2002.
5. Records, pp. 2-3.
6.Id. at 2.
7.Id. at 21-22.
8.Id. at 21.
9. CA rollo, p. 114.
10.Id. at 116.
11.Id.
12. Records, p. 14.
13. CA rollo, p. 116.
14.Id. at 116-117.
15.Id. at 92.
16.Id. at 117.
17. Records, p. 13.
18.Id. at 10-11.
19.Id. at 12.
20.Id. at 15.
21.Id. at 12.
22.Id. at 19.
23.Id. at 6-7.
24. CA rollo, pp. 92-93.
25. Records, p. 9.
26.Id. at 8.
27.Id. at 5.
28.Id. at 4.
29. CA rollo, p. 93.
30.Id.
31.Id. at 117.
32.Id. at 115; see also records, Order dated September 26, 2013, pp. 62-64.
33.Id. at 115-116; see also records, Order dated October 4, 2013, pp. 68-69.
34.Id. at 36.
35.Id.
36. Records, pp. 186-204.
37.Id. at 200-202.
38.Id. at 204.
39.Id. at 203-204.
40. CA rollo, p. 9.
41.Id. at 112-132.
42.Id. at 131-132.
43.Rollo, Notice of Appeal dated October 19, 2017, pp. 23-24.
44. See Matabilas v. People, G.R. No. 243615, November 11, 2019.
45. See Badio v. People, G.R. No. 236023, February 20, 2019.
46.Id.
47. 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." Approved: July 15, 2014.
This Court reiterated in People v. Ramos y Mosca, (G.R. No. 243944, March 15, 2021), that 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. The act subject of this case allegedly occurred on June 4, 2013, hence, prior to the effectivity of R.A. No. 10640.
48.Matabilas v. People, supra note 44.
49. See People v. Manansala, G.R. No. 228825, July 28, 2020; see also Dizon v. People, G.R. No. 239399, March 25, 2019.
50.People v. Manansala, supra.
51.People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
52.Id.
53. 826 Phil. 981-999 (2018).
54.Id. at 996-997.
55.People v. Dayon, G.R. No. 229669, November 27, 2019.
56. G.R. No. 242686, July 7, 2020.