THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 250648. July 28, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ANANIAS KILAPKILAP, JR. y TINAY, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 28, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 250648 (People of the Philippines v. Ananias Kilapkilap, Jr. y Tinay). — Accused-appellant assails the Decision 1 dated July 25, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02361, which affirmed the Decision 2 dated June 17, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dumaguete City, Branch 30, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165 or the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," which punishes the Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals in Criminal Case No. 2015-22685.
Facts of the Case
The Prosecution's Version
In early October 2014, PO1 Crisanto Panggoy (PO1 Panggoy) learned, during a debriefing for arrested drug personalities, that a certain Ananias Kilapkilap also known as "Dodong Killer," accused-appellant herein, 3 was selling shabu. Police Inspector Ryan Jay Orapa (PI Orapa) 4 instructed PO1 Panggoy and PO1 Gerald Manlan (PO1 Manlan), both members of the Provincial Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Group (PAIDSOTG) of the Negros Oriental Provincial Police Office, to verify the information. PO1 Panggoy and PO1 Manlan conducted surveillance operations on October 2, 2014. 5
At around 11:00 p.m. of October 3, 2014, PO1 Panggoy, PO1 Manlan and an unidentified police asset, who was an acquaintance of accused-appellant, 6 met the latter at Olis Apartment, Sibulan, Negros Oriental (Olis Apartment). PO1 Panggoy and the police asset told accused-appellant that they wanted to buy shabu worth P25,000.00. Accused-appellant said that he did not have shabu, but could sell them one sachet worth P5,000.00 on the next day. PO1 Panggoy and the police asset agreed, and said that they would return on the next day. 7 AIDSTE
PI Orapa briefed operatives of the PAIDSOTG at around 6:15 a.m. of October 4, 2014 for a buy-bust operation against accused-appellant at Olis Apartment. PO1 Panggoy was designated as poseur-buyer and was given a P500.00 bill to be used as buy-bust money. He marked the bill with his initials on the left side. 8 He also prepared cut manila paper and bundled it with the P500.00 bill to simulate the appearance of P5,000.00. 9 PO1 Manlan was designated as PO1 Panggoy's back-up officer. PO1 Manlan also coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) and informed them of the planned buy-bust operation. The other operatives were tasked to position themselves in strategic places around the target area. 10
The buy-bust team arrived at Olis Apartment at around 8:25 a.m. of October 4, 2014. PO1 Panggoy and the police asset approached the apartment. PO1 Manlan hid about 15 meters away while the rest of the team positioned themselves along the road and beside Olis Apartment. 11 The police asset called out accused-appellant's nickname "Dodong," who came out from his unit. Accused-appellant asked PO1 Panggoy and the police asset if they had the money. PO1 Panggoy responded in the affirmative. Thereafter, accused-appellant handed PO1 Panggoy a sachet containing white crystalline substance. The latter examined the contents of the sachet and determined that it was shabu because it easily shattered when force was applied. 12 PO1 Panggoy then gave accused the marked P500.00 together with the cut manila paper, folded to conceal the bogus money. Accused-appellant put the money inside his pocket. 13 Subsequently, PO1 Panggoy immediately arrested accused-appellant and informed him of the reason for his arrest. A commotion ensued, which prompted PO1 Manlan to rush to the scene. PO1 Panggoy informed accused-appellant of his constitutional rights in the Visayan language, which he understood. 14
After the arrest, PO1 Panggoy searched accused-appellant while PO1 Manlan held him. PO1 Panggoy retrieved the marked money with the cut manila paper. He then marked the sachet seized from accused-appellant as "AK-BB-10-04-14," "AK" being accused-appellant's initials. 15 PO1 Panggoy also affixed his signature on a masking tape appended to the sachet. 16 When people started to gather around the target area, the buy-bust team decided to return to the Sibulan Police Station to continue the inventory. PO1 Panggoy believed that accused-appellant's companions would retaliate if they stayed. PO1 Panggoy had custody of the seized item and the marked money while in transit to the police station. 17
At the station, the officers called for the required witnesses. Barangay Kagawad Arnolio Ramos (Kagawad Ramos) 18 and Department of Justice (DOJ) Representative Carmencita Dipaling (Dipaling) arrived. PO1 Panggoy conducted the inventory in front of Kagawad Ramos and Dipaling, and showed them the sachet containing white crystalline substance and the marked money. He also presented accused-appellant to them. 19 Thereafter, he had Kagawad Ramos and Dipaling sign the Inventory of Property Seized dated October 4, 2014 (Inventory of Property Seized). 20 Accused-appellant refused to sign the document after being asked. PO1 Manlan photographed the proceedings. 21
Dipaling testified that she was fetched by a police officer from the Sibulan Police Station so that she could witness the inventory. She confirmed that she witnessed the inventory and saw the seized item. She also confirmed that she saw accused-appellant and that she signed the Inventory of Property Seized. 22 On the other hand, the testimony of Kagawad Ramos was stipulated upon. In particular, the prosecution and the defense stipulated that: Kagawad Ramos was a Kagawad of Barangay Boloc-boloc, Sibulan, Negros Oriental; that he was present during the inventory; and, that it was his signature that appeared above his handwritten name on the Inventory or Property Seized. 23 acEHCD
After the inventory, PO1 Panggoy placed the sachet inside a brown evidence envelope, sealed it with masking tape, and affixed his signature on the seal with the notation "sealed, handling personnel: PO1 Panggoy." He then brought the envelope together with the Request for Crime Laboratory Examination dated October 4, 2014 24 that he prepared to the Negros Oriental Provincial Crime Laboratory. PO1 Panggoy also brought accused-appellant to the crime laboratory. Forensic Chemist PCI Josephine Llena (PCI Llena) received the envelope at exactly 11:54 a.m. of October 4, 2014. 25
PCI Llena opened the sealed envelope to examine its contents and took out the sachet. She performed physical and chemical tests on the specimen. Thereafter, she prepared Chemistry Report N. D-411-14 dated October 4, 2014 26 where she indicated that the sachet marked "AK-BB-10-04-14" contained 0.36 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride. As requested by PI Orapa, PCI Llena also analyzed the urine sample taken from accused-appellant. She found that accused-appellant's urine was positive for methamphetamine. After the tests, PCI Llena resealed the sachet "AK-BB-10-04-14" and put it back inside the envelope. She resealed the envelope with her own markings and stored it in the evidence room of the crime laboratory. PCI Llena was the only person who had a key to the evidence room. 27
Accordingly, the State filed an Information 28 charging accused-appellant with a violation of Article II, Section 5 of R.A. 9165:
That at about 08:30 o'clock in the morning of October 4, 2014, more or less, at Barangay Boloc-boloc, in the Municipality of Sibulan, Negros Oriental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority from law, did then and there willfully, knowingly, consciously, unlawfully, and feloniously SELL, GIVE AWAY and DELIVER, a transparent plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine hydrochloride, locally known as Shabu, a dangerous drug, with a net weight of 0.36 gram to a government poseur-buyer, to the damage and prejudice of the Republic of the Philippines. 29 (Emphasis in the original)
On January 8, 2015, PCI Llena retrieved the sealed envelope from the evidence room and submitted it to the court. 30
Accused-appellant's Version
Accused-appellant denied the charges against him and claimed that he was framed-up and tortured at the police station. In particular, he claims that on the evening of October 3, 2014, he was at his residence at Olis Apartment with his live-in partner, Sayuri Yucor Rayna. 31 At around 11:00 p.m., while he was asleep, police officers knocked on his door and eventually kicked it down when he did not answer them. The police officers searched his things and brought him to the Dumaguete City Police Station at around midnight. 32 There, they told him that he was alias "Dodong Killer" and that he stole the ring of an unnamed Colonel from Sta. Catalina. 33 When he denied the accusation, the police officers placed bullets between his fingers and gripped his hand. The police chief even slapped him on the face with a slipper. 34 SDHTEC
At around 8:00 a.m. of October 4, 2014, the police officers brought him to the provincial police headquarters at Agan-an, Sibulan, Negros Oriental. 35 There, the chief of the PAIDSOTG told him to tell the truth and return the ring. 36 Otherwise, they would plant evidence on him so that he would rot in jail. 37 When he could not tell them what they wanted, they placed him beside a table with drugs on top. 38 Then, he was asked to sign and place his thumb mark on a piece of paper. He refused and denied that he owned the drugs. He also denied that he was engaged in selling drugs. 39
Accused-appellant claimed that it was PO1 Panggoy who put the drugs on the table, 40 but he did not file charges against him because he could not afford to do so. 41 He also claimed that he did not speak to any elected official or DOJ representative during the inventory. 42 Finally, he claimed that he only met his counsel in the morning that he was set to testify in court and that no lawyer assisted him during the inquest proceedings. 43
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
The trial court found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt 44 as the State was able to establish the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized shabu. 45
The trial court also found accused-appellant's denial to be weak and self-serving 46 as it was unsubstantiated by credible proof. According to the trial court, accused-appellant failed to establish ill motive on the part of the arresting officers. The trial court also noted that accused-appellant did not file any administrative or criminal case against PO1 Panggoy and the other police officers, despite accused-appellant's claim of frame-up and torture. In all, the trial court considered the testimony of the State's witnesses to be more credible and worthy of belief than that of accused-appellant's. 47
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The CA affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of the sale of a dangerous drug. 48 The CA also held that the chain of custody was unbroken and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the shabu was preserved. 49 Furthermore, the CA found that the testimonies of the State's witnesses, although inconsistent on minor points, were credible. 50
Proceedings before the Court
On August 26, 2020, the Court issued a Resolution directing the parties to file their respective supplemental briefs within 30 days from notice. 51
The Public Attorney's Office filed a Manifestation in Lieu of a Supplemental Brief dated January 13, 2021 stating that filing a supplemental brief would only be redundant because accused-appellant has sufficiently discussed his case in the Appellant's Brief dated April 12, 2017 filed with the CA. 52 Similarly, the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a Manifestation and Motion dated December 7, 2020 53 declaring that it will no longer file a Supplemental Brief because the issues have been sufficiently discussed in its Appellee's Brief dated August 18, 2017 filed with the CA. 54
Ruling of the Court
The appeal is meritorious.
Before discussing the State's non-compliance with the requirements for the proper custody of seized dangerous drugs under R.A. 9165, as amended by R.A. 10640, 55 the Court must first re-examine the penchant of law enforcement officers for using boodle money during buy-bust operations. "Boodle money" means bundles of newspapers cut in the size of money bills. 56 They are not counterfeit money and do not appear like genuine bills. Hence, to a person who sees genuine money regularly, boodle money would appear as newspaper cut-outs rather than genuine peso bills. 57 In this case, manila paper was used to simulate money rather than newspaper bills. AScHCD
PO1 Panggoy allegedly paid accused-appellant P5,000.00 for shabu, using a P500.00 bill bundled with cut manila paper. 58 When asked by PO1 Panggoy if he had the shabu in his possession, accused-appellant handed him a heat-sealed plastic sachet. 59 After inspecting the sachet and upon being satisfied that accused-appellant handed him a dangerous drug, PO1 Panggoy gave accused-appellant the P500.00 bill bundled with boodle or "bogus" money. 60
Pertinently, the alleged buy-bust operation transpired at around 8:30 a.m. of October 4, 2014. 61 Thus, it is more in accord with human experience that a bundle of P5,000.00 with only one genuine P500.00 bill would appear suspicious to accused-appellant, and could have led to the non-consummation of the alleged sale transaction. Hence, PO1 Panggoy's claim that accused-appellant accepted the payment without concern is incredible.
Now, We discuss the police officers' non-compliance with R.A. 9165, as amended by RA 10640, which prescribes the procedures to be observed in the custody and disposition of confiscated or seized dangerous drugs — otherwise known as the chain of custody.
The chain of custody consists of four links, namely: 62
The following links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation: first, 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. 63
Failure to observe the rules governing each link of the chain of custody tarnishes the credibility of the corpus delicti64 and raises doubts as to whether the punishable act under R.A. 9165, as amended, was actually committed by the accused. 65
After a meticulous review of the records, it is evident that the arresting officers committed serious lapses in relation to the first link in the chain of custody. To begin with, the PAIDSOTG failed to procure the presence of at least two witnesses (i.e., an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media) 66 to observe the apprehension of accused-appellant and the seizure of the alleged shabu from his person.
Having the necessary witnesses at the time of apprehension and seizure is a vital aspect of the chain of custody because it would foreclose the pernicious practice of planting of evidence or compromising the integrity of the same. 67 In People v. Tomawis, 68 the Court extensively discussed the significance of this requirement:
The presence of the witnesses from the DOJ, media and from public elective office is necessary to protect against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug. Using the language of the Court in People v. Meadoza, without the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the DOJ and any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the drugs, the evils of switching, "planting" or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts 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 subject sachet that was evidence of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused.
The presence of the three [now two] 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 [two] 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 frameup 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. AcICHD
The practice of police operatives of not bringing to the intended place of arrest the [two] 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. 69 (Emphases and underscoring supplied; italics in the original)
To be sure, the PAIDSOTG could have easily secured the attendance of the necessary witnesses if it was so minded, given that a buy-bust operation is a well-planned activity. 70 Police operatives came to know of accused-appellant's alleged drug activities in "the early part of October 2014," 71 and conducted surveillance activities on October 2, 2014, which gave the PAIDSOTG sufficient time to coordinate with the necessary witnesses. Nevertheless, they merely "called in" the witnesses — the very act militated against in Tomawis — after the arrest of accused-appellant and the seizure of the drugs. As narrated by PO1 Panggoy:
Direct examination of PO1 Panggoy conducted by Prosecutor Marites F. Macarubbo
Q: [D]id you reach the Sibulan PNP Station?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: And what happened when you reached there?
A: We called for the witnesses, ma'am.
Q: And did these witnesses arrive?
A: Yes, ma'am. 72
Q: What happened when the witnesses arrived?
A: They signed the inventory, ma'am. 73
The records are also bereft of any indication that the necessary witnesses (i.e., Dipaling and Kagawad Ramos) were present at or near the buy-bust area when accused-appellant was arrested at Olis Apartment in the morning of October 4, 2014. Dipaling, the DOJ representative, testified that she was fetched by a police officer and brought to the Sibulan Police Station only to witness the inventory of items seized from accused-appellant. 74 On cross-examination, Dipaling confirmed that when she arrived at the police station: the accused-appellant had already been arrested; the seized item was already prepared and marked by the police; and, the entries in the Inventory of Property Seized were already made. 75 Her participation was limited to examining and signing the Inventory of Property seized. 76 Likewise, Kagawad Ramos' participation was limited to the inventory at the Sibulan Police Station. 77 Therefore, the PAIDSOTG operatives disregarded the exhortation in People v. Tomawis to have the necessary witnesses present during the warrantless arrest.
The operatives of PAIDSOTG also failed to photograph and inventory the seized item at the place of arrest. The photographs presented by the prosecution only depict accused-appellant at the Sibulan Police Station 78 but not outside his residence at Olis Apartment. While the seized item was marked at the place of arrest, the failure of police operatives to photograph the seized item and conduct an immediate inventory raises doubts as to the identity of the prohibited drug. Considering the miniscule amount of shabu involved in this case, the seized item may have been planted, switched, contaminated or tampered with 79 in the course of transport from Olis Apartment to Sibulan Police Station. Had the police operatives photographed the seized item prior to transport, such doubt as to the corpus delicti may have been foreclosed.
To justify the conduct of inventory and photographing at Sibulan Police Station, PO1 Panggoy claimed that accused-appellant "might have companions who [c]ould retaliate." 80 We find the justification untenable. TAIaHE
Although We have previously ruled that the immediate physical inventory and photograph of the confiscated items at the place of arrest may be excused when the safety and security of the apprehending officers and the witnesses required by law are threatened by immediate or extreme danger, 81 the witnesses of the prosecution failed to establish the foregoing conditions when they arrested accused-appellant.
The Court notes that onlookers started to converge on the target area after the arrest of accused-appellant. 82 However, there is no showing that their presence posed any danger to the PAIDSOTG operatives. Furthermore, the record does not bare accused-appellant's connection to any "companions" who are capable of mounting an assault. PO1 Panggoy's claim, by itself, is insufficient to dispense with the chain of custody requirements provided under the law.
Additionally, a perusal of the Inventory of Property Seized 83 shows that it was not signed by the accused-appellant as required under Section 21 of R.A. 9165, as amended. 84 The signing of the inventory by the accused is not a trivial requirement. It is one of the safeguards which ensures the identity and integrity of the seized items. 85 Had accused-appellant refused to sign, the police operatives are enjoined to indicate his refusal on the Inventory of Property Seized. 86 On this regard, the members of the PAIDSOTG failed.
While the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9165, as amended allows permissible non-compliance with chain of custody procedures, 87 the State must establish justifiable grounds for non-compliance. In particular, the prosecution must: (a) recognize any lapses on the part of law enforcement operatives; and (b) be able to justify the same. 88
Nowhere in the record did the prosecution acknowledge that it had disregarded the witness, inventory and photographing requirements prescribed under R.A. 9165, as amended. Moreover, the prosecution failed to put forth satisfactory reasons for non-compliance. Hence, the police officers' non-compliance cannot be sanctioned.
Because of the lapses in the chain of custody — a vital component in establishing the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt 89 — We find that the State failed to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence enjoyed by accused-appellant. 90
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated July 25, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02361 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Ananias Kilapkilap, Jr. y Tinay is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court ORDERS the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE accused-appellant Ananias Kilapkilap, Jr. y Tinay, unless he is being held for some other lawful cause. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is likewise ORDERED to inform the Court of the date of accused-appellant's release, or the reason for his continued confinement, within ten (10) days from receipt of notice. Copies shall also be furnished to the Director General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information. cDHAES
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos (former Member of this Court) and Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap; rollo, pp. 5-24.
2. Records, pp. 111-116-A.
3. Id. at 48.
4. Id. at 76.
5 TSN dated April 26, 2016, p. 16.
6. Records, p. 16.
7. CA rollo, p. 44.
8. TSN dated April 26, 2016, pp. 5-6.
9. Id. at 6.
10. CA rollo, p. 44.
11. TSN dated April 26, 2016, p. 9.
12. Id.
13. TSN dated April 26, 2016, pp. 6-7.
14. CA rollo, p. 45.
15. TSN dated April 26, 2016, p. 10.
16. Rollo, p. 22.
17. CA rollo, p. 45.
18. TSN dated April 26, 2016, p. 15.
19. Id. at 11-12.
20. Additional Records Exhibits, p. 5.
21. Records, p. 27.
22. TSN dated April 20, 2016, pp. 3-4.
23. CA rollo, p. 46; records, p. 18.
24. Records, p. 21.
25. CA rollo, p. 46.
26. Records, p. 23.
27. CA rollo, p. 46.
28. Records, p. 2.
29. Id.
30. Additional Records Exhibits, p. 4.
31. TSN dated May 23, 2016, pp. 4-5; CA rollo, p. 27.
32. Id. at 5.
33. Id. at 7.
34. Id. at 5-6.
35. Id. at 6.
36. Id. at 6-7.
37. Id.
38. Id.
39. Id.
40. Id. at 8.
41. Id. at 9.
42. Id.
43. Id.
44. CA rollo, p. 53.
45. Id. at 48.
46. Id. at 52.
47. Id. at 52-53.
48. Rollo, pp. 13, 15-20.
49. Id. at 21-22.
50. Id. at 19.
51. Id. at 32-33.
52. Id. at 50-52.
53. Id. at 43-47.
54. Id.
55. 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."
56. People v. Lacdan, G.R. No. 208472, October 14, 2019.
57. Id.
58. TSN dated April 26, 2016, pp. 5-6; Records, p. 16.
59. Id. at 9.
60. Records, p. 17.
61. TSN dated April 27, 2016, p. 7; Additional Records Exhibits, pp. 1, 5, 8.
62. People v. Kamad, 624 Phil. 289 (2010).
63. Id. at 304.
64. People v. Que, G.R. No. 212994, January 31, 2018.
65. Id.
66. People v. Esguerra, G.R. No. 243986, January 22, 2020.
67. People v. Globa, G.R. No. 241251, December 10, 2019.
68. 830 Phil. 385 (2018), cited in People v. Gamo, G.R. No. 213417, February 26, 2020.
69. Id. at 408-409.
70. People v. Globa, G.R. No. 241251, December 10, 2019 citing People v. Sood, 832 Phil. 850 (2018).
71. TSN dated April 26, 2016, p. 3.
72. TSN dated September 23, 2016, p. 15.
73. TSN dated April 26, 2016, p. 11.
74. TSN dated April 20, 2016, p. 3.
75. Id. at 6.
76. Id. at 7.
77. Records, p. 90.
78. Id. at 27; TSN dated April 27, 2016, p. 8.
79. SeePeople v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78, 92-93 (2014), citing Malilin v. People, 576 Phil. 576 (2018).
80. TSN dated February 10, 2016, p. 4.
81. People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
82. TSN dated April 26, 2016, p. 11.
83. Additional Records Exhibits, p. 5.
84. People v. Villarta, 828 Phil. 259 (2018).
85. People v. Lesaca, G.R. No. 240223, January 19, 2021.
86. See Guidelines on the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Section 21 of R.A. 9165, as amended by R.A. 10640, Section I, A, A.1.5.
87. Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9165, Section 21.
88. People v. Sarabia, G.R. No. 243190, August 28, 2019, citing People v. Alagarme, 754 Phil. 449 (2015).
89. G.R. No. 229046, September 11, 2019.
90. SeePeople v. Sarabia, supra note 88.