People v. Katipunan y Laurino

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 248078. October 6, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ARTURO KATIPUNAN y LAURINO, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated October 6, 2021, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 248078 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, v. ARTURO KATIPUNAN y LAURINO, accused-appellant.) — Due to the absence of the mandatory third-party witnesses at the time of the arrest and seizure, the lack of precautionary measures in handling the seized drugs, and marking of the seized drugs not at the place of arrest, the identity, and integrity of the seized drugs have not been sufficiently proved.

This Court resolves the appeal filed by Arturo Katipunan y Laurino (Katipunan), challenging the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals which, in turn, affirmed the Judgment 2 of the Regional Trial Court convicting Katipunan for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, in violation of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. 3

In two separate Informations, Katipunan was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, both punished respectively under Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165. The accusatory portion of the Informations read:

In Criminal Case No. 16-328317 for violation of Section 5, Article II of [Republic Act No.] 9165:

"That on or about August 23, 2016, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not having been authorized by law to sell, trade, deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell or offer for sale to a police officer/poseur buyer one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with marking 'AKL with signature' containing ZERO POINT ZERO SEVEN NINE (0.079) gram of white crystalline substance containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride commonly known as Shabu, a dangerous drug.

Contrary to law."

In Criminal Case No. 16-328318 for violation of Section 11(3), Article II of [Republic Act No.] 9165:

"That on or about August 23, 2016, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused not having been authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession and under his custody and control one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets (sic) with marking 'AKL-1 with signature' containing ZERO POINT ZERO NINE FIVE (0.095) gram of white crystalline substance containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride commonly known as Shabu, a dangerous drug.

Contrary to law." 4 (Citations omitted)

Upon arraignment, Katipunan pleaded not guilty to the charges. Pre-trial thereafter followed, and upon its termination, trial on the merits then ensued. 5

The prosecution presented the testimony of Police Officer I Miguel delos Santos (PO1 delos Santos). According to PO1 delos Santos, on the afternoon of August 22, 2016, an informant came to the police station and reported to Police Officer II Kirby Latonero that Katipunan was selling shabu at Flores Street, Tondo, Manila. After the informant's report was verified, a buy-bust operation was planned. 6

PO1 delos Santos was designated as the poseur-buyer. Two P100.00 bills were prepared as marked money. 7 ETHIDa

At about 11:45 p.m. on the same day, a team of eight police officers, 8 together with the informant, went to Flores Street, Tondo, Manila. Upon seeing Katipunan, the informant introduced PO1 delos Santos as someone interested in buying P200.00 worth of shabu. Katipunan took out from his pocket a small sachet and handed it over to PO1 delos Santos, who placed it inside his left pocket. 9 In exchange, PO1 delos Santos gave him the two P100.00 bills. PO1 delos Santos then scratched his right cheek, the pre-arranged signal to the other police officers that the sale had been consummated. Katipunan attempted to flee but was unsuccessful. Upon being instructed to take out all other contents of his pockets, Katipunan brought out one more plastic sachet with white crystalline substance. PO1 delos Santos kept this newly confiscated sachet and the two P100.00 bills inside his right pocket. 10 Thereafter, Katipunan was arrested. Because a commotion built up as three relatives of Katipunan arrived and tried to take Katipunan with them, the police officers decided to go to the police station. 11

At the police station, the seized sachets were marked with AKL and AKL-1. The inventory was conducted in the presence of Katipunan, a media representative, and a barangay official, who all signed the inventory receipt. Photos were taken while inventory was conducted. PO1 delos Santos then brought the seized items to Police Chief Inspector Elisa Reyes Arturo of Manila Police District Crime Laboratory for examination. The seized items tested positive for shabu, a dangerous drug. 12

Katipunan was the sole witness for the defense. He denied the material allegations against him. He recalled that on August 23, 2016, he was resting in his house when he heard a knock on his door. When he answered the door, he was confronted with a group of men who introduced themselves as police officers and invited him to the police station for verification. When Katipunan asked why, the men told him to just go with them. Katipunan claimed that he saw the drugs attributed to him only at the police station. He also admitted to using drugs and voluntarily surrendered. 13

In its November 21, 2016 Judgment, the Regional Trial Court found Katipunan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. The dispositive portion of the Judgment reads:

PREMISES CONSIDERED, his guilt having been proven beyond reasonable doubt, accused ARTURO KATIPUNAN [y] LAURINO is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 in Crim. Case No. 16-328317.

In Crim. Case No. 16-328318, his guilt having been proven beyond reasonable doubt, accused is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from 12 years and 1 day as minimum to 14 years as maximum and to pay a fine of P300,000.000.

The Zero Point Zero Seven Nine (0.079) gram of shabu and the Zero Point Zero Nine Five (0.095) gram of shabu are confiscated in favor of the government.

SO ORDERED. 14

Aggrieved, Katipunan filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals. He claimed that he should be acquitted due to the prosecution's failure to establish the corpus delicti and the conspicuous broken chain of custody. 15 This was evinced by how PO1 delos Santos, while on the witness stand, confused which of the two sachets is the subject of illegal sale and which one is the subject of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. 16 Further, PO1 delos Santos merely placed the seized sachets in his pockets: the subject of illegal sale was kept in his left pocket and the subject of illegal possession in his right pocket. According to Katipunan, this is an unsatisfactory manner of handling the seized drugs, which taints its integrity. 17

In its October 22, 2018 Decision, 18 the Court of Appeals affirmed the Regional Trial Court's findings. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the present appeal is DENIED and the Judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 20 dated 21 November 2016 in Criminal Case Nos. 16-328317-18 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED. 19

In its ruling, the Court of Appeals found that the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were all present and Katipunan was positively identified by the prosecution. Similarly, the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs were satisfied. The Court of Appeals also emphasized the legitimacy of the buy-bust operation. The corpus delicti was proven and established by the prosecution, and there existed an intact and unbroken chain of custody. Against all these points, Katipunan's defense of denial and frame-up must fail.

Katipunan filed a Notice of Appeal, 20 to which the Court of Appeals gave due course in its March 7, 2019 Resolution. The case records were thus elevated to this Court. 21

In its September 2, 2019 Resolution, 22 this Court noted the case records and directed the parties to file their respective supplemental briefs. cSEDTC

The Office of the Solicitor General, on behalf of the People of the Philippines, manifested that it would no longer file a supplemental brief. 23 Accused-appellant made a similar manifestation through his counsel.

The issue to be resolved by this Court is whether or not the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of accused-appellant Arturo Katipunan y Laurino for violation of Sections 5 and 11 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.

The elements that must be established to convict the accused-appellant for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act are settled:

In actions involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must first be established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.

On the other hand, in prosecutions for illegal possession of a dangerous drug, it must be shown that (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. Similarly, in this case, the evidence of the corpus delicti must be established beyond reasonable doubt. 24

Integral to any conviction for either offense is proof of the integrity and identity of the dangerous drug, the corpus delicti, for both offenses. 25

Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640 in 2014, states the rules governing the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered drugs and/or drug paraphernalia:

SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items;

(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;

(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done under oath by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued immediately upon the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued immediately upon completion of the said examination and certification[.]

Pursuant to Section 21, the prosecution must be able to establish the chain of custody of the drug from seizure to turnover for chemical analysis. In People v. Castillo: 26

There are four (4) links in the chain of custody of the confiscated item that need to be established:

[F]irst, the seizure and marking, if practicable, 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 from the forensic chemist to the court. (Citations omitted)

Marking, as the "starting point in the custodial link," 27 must be accomplished immediately after seizure of the dangerous drugs. The essence of marking in safeguarding the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti was explained by this Court in People v. Dahil: 28 SDAaTC

Crucial in proving the chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related items immediately after they have been seized from the accused. "Marking" means the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the items seized. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link; hence, it is vital that the seized contraband be immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate 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 the criminal proceedings, thus, preventing switching, planting or contamination of evidence.

It must be noted that marking is not found in [Republic Act No.] 9165 and is different from the inventory-taking and photography under Section 21 of the said law. Long before Congress passed [Republic Act No.] 9165, however, this Court had consistently held that failure of the authorities to immediately mark the seized drugs would cast reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti. (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

This Court has overturned convictions when the prosecution failed to prove that the marking of the seized drugs was done immediately after arrest and seizure. People v. Orteza29 explained the effects of noncompliance with Section 21:

In People v. Laxa, where the buy-bust team failed to mark the confiscated marijuana immediately after the apprehension of the accused, the Court held that the deviation from the standard procedure in anti-narcotics operations produced doubts as to the origins of the marijuana. Consequently, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the corpus delicti.

The Court made a similar ruling in People v. Kimura, where the Narcom operatives failed to place markings on the seized marijuana at the time the accused was arrested and to observe the procedure and take custody of the drug. (Citations omitted)

Here, the police officers only marked the seized sachets at the police station, not at the place where accused-appellant was arrested. To justify the belated marking of the seized items, the prosecution claimed that the police officers could not do the marking immediately due to accused-appellant's three female relatives who came to the scene, attempted to take accused-appellant with them and away from the custody of the police officers, and caused a commotion enough for people to gather. However, this Court has previously held that the acts of the accused-appellant's relatives preventing the latter's arrest do not warrant that marking be done at a place other than the place of arrest when the police could have so easily controlled the commotion. 30 Here, since the incidents at the place of arrest did not justify the belated marking at the police station, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items is put into question. 31

Further, since the buy-bust operation here was conducted in 2016 after the amendments of Republic Act No. 10640 took effect, the requirement of having two third-party witnesses — an elective official and a media or National Prosecution Service representative — should have also been complied with. 32

These third-party witnesses must be present as early as the time of apprehension. In People v. Tomawis: 33

Section 21 plainly requires the apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and the photographing of the same immediately after seizure and confiscation. In addition, the inventory must be done in the presence of the accused, his counsel, or representative, a representative of the DOJ, the media, and an elected public official, who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.

The phrase "immediately after seizure and confiscation" means that the physical inventory and photographing of the drugs were intended by the law to be made immediately after, or at the place of apprehension. And only if this is not practicable, the IRR allows that the inventory and photographing could be done as soon as the buy-bust team reaches the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team. By the same token, however, this also means that the three required 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. Simply put, the buy-bust team has enough time and opportunity to bring with them said witnesses.

xxx xxx xxx

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."34 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

Here, the arresting officer admitted that the two mandatory third-party witnesses were not present at the arrest and seizure. They were only witnesses to the inventory at the police station, well after the period mandated by the law for them to be present. The lack of the required witnesses during the time of the confiscation casts doubt on the identity and integrity of the seized drugs. Their absence is even more glaring when the buy-bust operation was pre-planned and the witnesses' attendance could have been secured beforehand. 35 acEHCD

To convince courts that the failure to fully comply with Section 21 is justified, the prosecution must not only specifically plead the justifiable grounds for the lapses but also point to specific safety measures taken to ensure that the chain of custody was still intact. 36 Yet, here, the prosecution was unable to sufficiently explain the lapses, only claiming that the initially seized item which was the subject of the illegal sale was kept inside PO1 delos Santos' left pocket and the subsequently confiscated sachet which was the subject of illegal possession was kept separate inside PO1 delos Santos' right pocket. This is a serious mishandling that taints the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. In People v. Dela Cruz, 37 this Court did not accept the police officer's act of keeping the seized sachets in his pockets as a sufficient guarantee in maintaining the integrity of the corpus delicti:

The prosecution effectively admits that from the moment of the supposed buy-bust operation until the seized items' turnover for examination, these items had been in the sole possession of a police officer. In fact, not only had they been in his possession, they had been in such close proximity to him that they had been nowhere else but in his own pockets.

Keeping one of the seized items in his right pocket and the rest in his left pocket is a doubtful and suspicious way of ensuring the integrity of the items. Contrary to the Court of Appeals' finding that PO1 Bobon took the necessary precautions, we find his actions reckless, if not dubious.

Even without referring to the strict requirements of Section 21, common sense dictates that a single police officer's act of bodily-keeping the item(s) which is at the crux of offenses penalized under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, is fraught with dangers. One need not engage in a meticulous counter-checking with the requirements of Section 21 to view with distrust the items coming out of PO1 Bobon's pockets. That the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals both failed to see through this and fell — hook, line, and sinker — for PO1 Bobon's avowals is mind-boggling.

Moreover, PO1 Bobon did so without even offering the slightest justification for dispensing with the requirements of Section 21.

Section 21, paragraph 1, of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, includes a proviso to the effect that "noncompliance of (sic) 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." Plainly, the prosecution has not shown that — on September 14, 2004, when dela Cruz was arrested and the sachets supposedly seized and marked — there were "justifiable grounds" for dispensing with compliance with Section 21. All that the prosecution has done is insist on its self-serving assertion that the integrity of the seized sachets has, despite all its lapses, nevertheless been preserved. 38

Due to the arresting officers' noncompliance with the chain of custody requirements, reasonable doubt exists as to the identity and integrity of the drugs presented as evidence. The prosecution being unable to prove the accused-appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, he must be acquitted.

We emphasize that in this case, the confiscated drugs were two sachets of less than 0.1 gram each. These minuscule amounts warrant heightened scrutiny of the police's handling of the seized drugs. In People v. Holgado: 39

Trial courts should meticulously consider the factual intricacies of cases involving violations of Republic Act No. 9165. All details that factor into an ostensibly uncomplicated and barefaced narrative must be scrupulously considered. Courts must employ heightened scrutiny, consistent with the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, in evaluating cases involving min[u]scule amounts of drugs. These can be readily planted and tampered. Also, doubt normally follows in cases where an accused has been discharged from other simultaneous offenses due to mishandling of evidence. Had the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals been so judicious in this case, a speedier resolution would have been handed to Holgado and Misarez whose guilt beyond reasonable doubt was not established.

It is lamentable that while our dockets are clogged with prosecutions under Republic Act No. 9165 involving small-time drug users and retailers, we are seriously short of prosecutions involving the proverbial "big fish." We are swamped with cases involving small fry who have been arrested for miniscule amounts. While they are certainly a bane to our society, small retailers are but low-lying fruits in an exceedingly vast network of drug cartels. Both law enforcers and prosecutors should realize that the more effective and efficient strategy is to focus resources more on the source and true leadership of these nefarious organizations. Otherwise, all these executive and judicial resources expended to attempt to convict an accused for 0.05 gram of shabu under doubtful custodial arrangements will hardly make a dent in the overall picture. It might in fact be distracting our law enforcers from their more challenging task: to uproot the causes of this drug menace. We stand ready to assess cases involving greater amounts of drugs and the leadership of these cartels. 40

WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08906 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Arturo Katipunan y Laurino is ACQUITTED of illegal sale of dangerous drugs and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Accused-appellant is ordered RELEASED from confinement unless he is being held for some other legal grounds.

Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections for immediate implementation. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to report the action he has taken to this Court within five days from receipt of this Resolution. For their information, copies shall also be furnished to the Police General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency.

The Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Manila is directed to turn over the seized sachets of shabu to the Dangerous Drugs Board for destruction in accordance with law. SDHTEC

Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

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

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 3-15. The October 22, 2018 Decision in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08906 was penned by Associate Justice Ramon Bato, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon A. Cruz and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi of the Ninth Division of the Court of Appeals, Manila.

2. CA rollo, pp. 57-69. The November 22, 2016 Judgment in Criminal Case Nos. 16-328317-18 was penned by Presiding Judge Marivic Balisi-Umali of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 20.

3. Republic Act No. 9165 (2002), Secs. 5 and 11 provides:

SECTION 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.

SECTION 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:

xxx xxx xxx

Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:

xxx xxx xxx

(2) Imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are five (5) grams or more but less than ten (10) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu," or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy," PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or three hundred (300) gams or more but less than five hundred (500) grams of marijuana; and

4.Rollo, pp. 3-4.

5.Id. at 4.

6.Id. at 4-5.

7.Id. at 5.

8. CA rollo, p. 58.

9.Id.

10.Id. at 58-59.

11.Rollo, p. 5.

12.Id. at 5-6.

13.Id. at 6-7.

14.Id. at 7.

15.Id.

16. CA rollo, pp. 43-44.

17.Id. at 45.

18.Rollo, pp. 3-15.

19.Id. at 15.

20.Rollo, pp. 16-17.

21.Id. at 21-22.

22.Id. at 21.

23.Id. at 27-34.

24.People v. Morales, 630 Phil. 215, 228 (2010) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division], citing People v. Darisan, et al., 597 Phil. 479, 485 (2009) [Per J. Corona, First Division] and People v. Partoza, 605 Phil. 883, 890 (2009) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].

25.People v. Saunar, 816 Phil. 482, 491 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

26.People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 238339, August 7, 2019 <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65610> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].

27.People v. Saunar, 816 Phil. 482, 497 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

28. 750 Phil. 212, 232 (2015) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].

29. 555 Phil. 700, 708 (2007) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].

30.Cha v. People, G.R. No. 246550, September 16, 2020 <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/66990> [Per J. J.C. Reyes, Jr., First Division].

31.People v. Año, 828 Phil. 439, 448 (2018) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].

32.Lescano v. People, 778 Phil. 460, 475 (2016) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

33. 830 Phil. 385 (2018) [Per J. Caguioa, Second Division].

34.Id. at 404-410.

35.People v. Jaafar, 803 Phil. 582, 591-592 [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

36.People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 238339, August 7, 2019 <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65610> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division], citing People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 234 (2008) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].

37. 744 Phil. 816 (2014) [Per. J. Leonen, Second Division].

38.Id. at 834-835.

39. 741 Phil. 78 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].

40.Id. at 100.