FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 251468. June 16, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.JIMMY IBAY y MANANSALA a.k.a. "JIMMY" and RENAN LAXAMANA y GERONA,accused,
RENAN LAXAMANA y GERONA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 16, 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 251468 (People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jimmy Ibay y Manansala a.k.a. "Jimmy" and Renan Laxamana y Gerona, Accused, Renan Laxamana y Gerona, Accused-Appellant). — In this appeal, 1 accused-appellant Renan Laxamana y Gerona (Renan) assails his conviction for violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 2 in the Decision dated 27 June 2019 3 promulgated by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10043, which affirmed the Judgment dated 06 May 2017 of Branch 61, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City.
Antecedents
Both the accused Jimmy Ibay y Manansala (Jimmy) and Renan were charged with violation of Section 5 of RA 9165 in an Information dated 11 April 2013, which reads:
That on or about the 10th day of April 2013, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually aiding one another, without any authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly sell and/or deliver the following:
(a) One (1) brick of dried suspected marijuana fruiting tops wrapped with red sando bag and further wrapped with brown packing tape weighing 750 grams.
(b) One (1) brick dried suspected marijuana fruiting tops wrapped with red sando bag and further wrapped with brown packing tape weighing 640 grams.
(c) One (1) brick of dried suspected marijuana fruiting tops wrapped with brown packing tape 900 grams.
(d) One (1) brick of dried suspected marijuana fruiting tops wrapped with sando bag and further wrapped with brown packing tape weighing 705 grams.
For FOUR THOUSAND PESOS (P4,000.00) Philippine Currency, to AGENT KARIZZE JOY CARIŇO, an agent of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency-Cordillera Administrative Region, Camp Bado Dangwa, La Trinidad, Benguet, who acted as poseur-buyer, knowing full well that said marijuana is a dangerous drug, in violation of the aforementioned provision of law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
The factual antecedents of the case, as summarized by the RTC and quoted by the CA, are as follows: CTHaSD
The prosecution presented as witnesses PDEA-CAR Agents Karizze Joy Cariňo, Julius Paderes and Nieve Wadingan, who corroborated each other's testimonies.
xxx xxx xxx
At around 8 o'clock in the morning of April 10, 2013, at the PDEA-CAR Regional Office at Camp Bado Dangwa, La Trinidad, Benguet, a walk-in confidential informant reported to Agent Cariňo that "Jimmy" was into peddling marijuana at Baguio City and La Trinidad, Benguet. The informant revealed that he and "Jimmy" had known each other for quite some time, considering that both of them had been working as porters at the Trading Post in La Trinidad, Benguet. The informant revealed that "Jimmy" was looking for a buyer of four (4) kilos of marijuana at Four Thousand Pesos (P4,000.00) and that if he can find a buyer, he will be given a commission by "Jimmy." The informant told Agent Cariňo that he can accompany her to "Jimmy."
Agent Cariňo relayed the information to Agent Julius Paderes, the commanding officer and team leader, and Agent Paderes told Agent Cariňo to conduct verification before conducting a possible buy-bust operation against "Jimmy," to which Agent Cariňo did. During the verification interview by Agent Cariňo, the informant revealed that it was his and "Jimmy's" agreement that the former can always bring a buyer to the latter at the Barangay Hall of Pico which is just near the Trading Post, the place where "Jimmy" usually hangs out when he has no work at the Trading Post.
At around 9 o'clock in the morning, the informant and Agent Cariňo proceeded to meet "Jimmy" at the Barangay Hall of Pico. There, a male person wearing black sunglasses and black sando approached the informant, and the informant introduced Agent Cariňo to "Jimmy" in this wise: "[J]immy, eto na ung pinahahanap mo na buyer ng Marijuana." "Jimmy" then asked Agent Cariňo: "[I]kaw ba ang bibili ng tinda kong Marijuana, walang problema basta may pera ka titindahan kita. Ano pala pangalan mo?" Agent Cariňo introduced herself as "Megan" and said she was interested in buying his marijuana. "Jimmy" the informed Agent Cariňo that his marijuana will be available in the afternoon and that he can deliver as much as four (4) kilos. "Jimmy" then set the place and time of transaction; i.e., in front of Supreme Hotel along Brgy. Happy Homes, Baguio City at 2 o'clock in the afternoon of the same day. He informed Agent Cariňo and the informant that he will have a companion by then.
Agent Cariňo and the informant then returned to the PDEA-CAR Office at around 9:45 o'clock in the morning and relayed to Agent Paderes what happened, prompting the latter to conduct a briefing for a buy-bust operation against "Jimmy" and the companion he spoke about. During the briefing, Agent Cariňo was designated as the poseur-buyer, Agent Wadingan as the arresting officer, Agent Paderes as team leader, and the rest of the team composed of Agent Ramirez, Agent Cariňo, Agent Capuyan, Agent Bansag, and Agent Dango as the back-up officers. It was also agreed upon that the pre-arranged signal to be executed by Agent Cariňo to signal that the sale is consummated was for her to tap the shoulder of "Jimmy." Agent Cariňo was handed by Agent Paderes the buy-bust money consisting of four (4) fake One Thousand Peso (P1,000.00) bills bearing the serial numbers CV624520, LP418303, DP730866, and LP418269. Agent Cariňo immediately marked the bills with her initials and corresponding numbers 1 to 4 on the fake bills, particularly, "KJC-1", "KJC-2", "KJC-3" and "KJC-4". Agent Cariňo also prepared seven (7) small green paper strips and inserted them in between the buy-bust money.
At around 12:45 o'clock in the afternoon, the buy-bust team, together with the informant, proceeded to the agreed place of transaction using the PDEA-CAR's service vehicle. The team parked the vehicle near Norcar Motor Shop and after familiarizing themselves of the place, a final briefing was conducted by Agent Paderes inside the vehicle. At around 1:30 in the afternoon, Agent Paderes advised Agent Cariňo and the informant to proceed to the agreed place of transaction, and Agent Wadingan and the rest of the team were advised to follow and strategically position themselves where they can witness the transaction.
At around 2 o'clock in the afternoon, after ten (10) to fifteen (15) minutes of waiting, Agent Cariňo noticed two (2) male persons alight from a Baguio-Buyagan Jeepney in front of the Supreme Hotel, particularly, at the Future Diner's main entrance. One of the males was "Jimmy" and another was wearing a red t-shirt with black and gray backpack. "Jimmy" and his companion approached the informant and Agent Cariňo and "Jimmy" introduced his male companion as "Renan" to Agent Cariňo and the informant. Thereafter, "Jimmy" asked for the payment but Agent Cariňo demanded to see first the marijuana, prompting "Jimmy" to say to "Renan" "[T]ol, ipakita mo yong marijuana natin dyan." "Renan" then unzipped the black backpack which was placed on his chest and showed to Agent Cariňo the contents consisting of four (4) marijuana bricks wrapped with brown packaging tape. At that instance, "Jimmy" told "Renan" to hand to him the backpack first to which "Renan" complied. Thereafter, Agent Cariňo showed to them the buy-bust money, prompting "Jimmy" to hand to Agent Cariňo the backpack and at which time, "Renan" uttered the words: "[M]agandang klaseng Marijuana yan." Agent Cariňo immediately examined one of the items by tearing a portion of the wrapper which revealed that the same was marijuana. "Jimmy" then demanded for the payment and Agent Cariňo handed the same and thereafter immediately tapped the shoulder of "Jimmy," prompting Agent Wadingan and the rest of the team to rush to the locus criminis in order to effect the arrest "Jimmy" and "Renan."
Upon containing "Jimmy" and "Renan," Agent Wadingan informed them of the nature and cause of their arrest and read to them their Miranda rights. Thereafter, Agent Wadingan body searched "Jimmy" and "Renan" which led to the recovery of the buy-bust money in the possession of "Jimmy." On the other hand, Agent Cariňo immediately marked the 4 bricks of marijuana and the backpack with her initials, date and signature. Photographs were also taken on site.
The team then proceeded to the Police Station Precinct 2 at Barangay Camdas, Baguio City — the nearest police station, at around 4 o'clock in the afternoon. There, inventory of the seized items transpired in the presence of Pros. Ma. Lourdes Esperanza D. Soriano, a media representative, and barangay kagawad Sunny Soledad, as evidenced by a certificate denominated as "Inventory of Confiscated/Seized Items." Photos were also taken showing that the inventory was conducted. During the conduct of inventory, it was found out that the complete name of "Jimmy" is Jimmy Manansala Ibay while "Renan" is Renan Gerona Laxamana.
After the inventory, the arrested persons were brought to the PDEA-CAR Office for purposes of documentation where the Request for Physical Examination, Request for Laboratory Exam, and Booking Sheets and Arrest Reports were prepared.
At around 7 o'clock in the evening, Agent Cariňo proceeded to the PNP Crime Laboratory and submitted the four (4) bricks of marijuana for the conduct of the necessary examination. The other agents brought the accused to the Baguio General Hospital and Medical Center (BGHMC) for the conduct of the physical and medical examination upon the accused.
The fact that there was an inventory conducted as well as the fact that there was the conduct of examination on the dangerous drugs were stipulated upon as follows:
PROS. SUDAYPAN:
Considering that there were no stipulations made as to the conduct of the inventory and the Chemistry Report during the preliminary conference and during the pre-trial, may we propose for stipulation the fact, Your Honor, that after the arrest of the suspects, who are the accused in this case, an inventory was conducted and the inventory is that reflected in Exhibit "D" found on page 14 of the records, Your Honor.
ATTY. FELIX:
Yes, admitted, Your Honor, in fact we will be adopting as our Exhibit "3", Your Honor.
PROS. SUDAYPAN:
That after the inventory, the items subject of the inventory were submitted to the PDEA laboratory for examination and that the result of the examination is that reflected in the Initial Laboratory Report marked as Exhibit "H", Your Honor.
ATTY. FELIX:
Admitted, Your Honor.
xxx xxx xxx
On the other hand, the defense presented as witnesses both the accused and Shiela Dacay. Here is the version of the defense:
On April 10, 2013, the accused were both working as vegetable porters or "kargador" at the Trading Post in La Trinidad, Benguet, while loading vegetables in a ten-wheeler truck owned by Aldrin Puno, their employer of seven (7) years. At that time, they were called and introduced to a certain "Ricky" by, Mike Moncal, the driver of the truck. They were told that "Ricky" wanted to hire their services to load his vegetables to the truck for Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00), to which the accused acceded. [After] loading Ricky's vegetables inside the truck, the accused looked for Ricky so that they can get the payment promised to them but Mike Moncal informed them that Ricky requested that they just meet him at the Supreme Hotel for the payment. Riding the truck driven by Mike Moncal, the accused alighted in front of the Hotel Supreme at around half past one in the afternoon and saw Ricky. Just as they were approaching him, unidentified persons surrounded them, and they saw Ricky leave the premises. The men eventually identified themselves as PDEA agents. The accused were then handcuffed and were ordered to kneel down with their heads down. The PDEA agents then asked them where are the marijuana, and considering that they do not know what the PDEA agents were talking about, answered them in the negative. After 15 to 20 minutes, they were asked to stand up and at that juncture, several unidentified persons approached then who were carrying a bag, and these individuals forced the accused to hold the bag and placed it in front of them and photos were then taken of them holding the bag.
xxx xxx xxx
On the other hand, defense witness Dacay, the common-law wife of accused Ibay, claims that the PDEA tried to extort Eighty Thousand Pesos (P80,000.00) from her in exchange for the release of accused Ibay. 5
Ruling of the RTC
On 06 May 2017, the RTC rendered a Decision 6 convicting Jimmy and Renan with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Sec. 5 of RA 9165, hence: TacSAE
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused Jimmy Ibay y Manansala and Renan Laxamana y Gerona GUILTY as charged beyond reasonable doubt and each is hereby SENTENCED to Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of P5,000,000.00.
The accused are likewise ORDERED FOR IMMEDIATE TRANSFER to the National Penitentiary and for the Jail Warden to implement this directive without any further delay.
The contraband subject of this case is ORDERED TO BE DESTROYED in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED.7
According to the RTC, all the elements for violation of Section 5 of RA 9165 are present in the case. The prosecution had presented a complete and exhaustive picture of the transaction between Jimmy and Renan, and the poseur-buyer. Moreover, the corpus delicti of the crime was proven based on strict parameters laid down by the law and jurisprudence with respect to the chain of custody of the object evidence. The seized evidence was marked, inventoried and photographed in accordance with the law. Further, PSI Edward Gayados (PSI Gayados), the forensic chemical officer, received the bricks of marijuana for examination, and later delivered to the RTC said evidence. 8
Decision of the CA
The CA, through the assailed Decision dated 27 June 2019, affirmed the conviction of the accused, to wit:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Judgment dated 6 May 2017 of the Regional Trial Court, 1st Judicial Region, Branch 61, Baguio City, in Crim. Case No. 34313-R, is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.9
The appellate court ruled that the material points of the buy-bust operation was established by the prosecution. Contrary to the claim of accused-appellants, Agent Karizze Joy Cariño (Agent Cariño) was the poseur-buyer and not the middleman in the transaction. The chain of custody of the seized evidence was also preserved. Hence, the conviction of Jimmy and Renan for the crime charged was proven beyond reasonable doubt. 10
Issue
The solitary issue in this case is whether or not the CA erred in affirming the conviction of accused-appellant for violation of Section 5 of RA 9165.
Ruling of the Court
The petition is meritorious.
For a successful prosecution of an offense for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11 of RA 9165, the State bears not only the burden of proving the elements of the crime charged, but also of proving the corpus delicti or the body of the crime. The illicit drugs confiscated from the accused comprise the corpus delicti of the charges. Accordingly, the State must present the seized drugs, together with proof that there were no substantial gaps in the chain of custody thereof as to raise doubts about the legitimacy of the evidence presented in court. The State and its agents are therefore mandated to strictly comply with procedures laid down by the law even if they carry out a legally effective buy-bust operation 11 or implement a search warrant over the premises controlled by the accused.
Section 21 of RA 9165 provides the procedural safeguards covering the seizure, custody and disposition of confiscated dangerous drugs, to wit:
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Laboratory Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or 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)
xxx xxx xxx
The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 restated the statutory safeguards, to wit:
(a) The apprehending officer/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;12 (Emphasis supplied)
The presence of the three (3) witnesses is essential to protect against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug. Their presence must be secured not only during the inventory of the confiscated drugs but at the time of seizure and confiscation to belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drugs. The three (3) witnesses are most needed during this time to insulate against the police practices of planting evidence. 13
In this case, the arresting officers committed unexplained procedural lapses affecting the integrity of the corpus delicti.
First, the Court notes that while the marking and photograph-taking was done at the place of arrest, the inventory was nevertheless conducted at the nearest police station. SDHacT
Second, the presence of any the three (3) insulating witnesses were not secured to witness the inventory and photograph-taking immediately after seizure and confiscation. This is evident in the pictures 14 taken after the arrest of Jimmy and Renan, and in the testimony of Agent Cariño. In fact, such testimony even shows that the witnesses were asked to sign an already prepared inventory sheet, hence:
Q When you were at Police Station2 (sic), what did you do?
A We prepared the inventory sheet and called for the representative of media, barangay and DOJ.
xxx xxx xxx
Q What happened during the inventory?
A We presented the backpack, the 4 bricks of Marijuana subject of the sale and the buy-bust money to the representatives of [the] media, barangay and DOJ.
Q Where were Jimmy and Renan while you were conducting the inventory?
A They were also at the police station 2 and presented to the witnesses to the inventory ma'am.
Q Were there pictures taken during the inventory?
A Yes ma'am.
Q Attached to page 54 of the records are some pictures previously marked as Exhibit F and series. Are these the pictures taken during the inventory?
A Yes ma'am.
Q After the inventory, what happened next?
A We proceeded to our office at Camp Dangwa for the preparation of documents. 15
xxx xxx xxx
Q x x x Now after the arrest and the marking as well as the photographing, inventory was conducted?
A Yes, Sir.
Q Inside the Police Station 2?
A Yes, Sir.
Q And there are these representatives coming from the media, barangay . . . So inventory was conducted inside Police Station 2?
A Yes, Sir.
Q And what time did the representative from the media, the barangay, and the DOJ arrive for that purpose?
A That's about four (4) o'clock in the afternoon, Sir.
Q The arrest was made at about 1:45 PM?
A Two (2) o'clock in the afternoon, Sir.
Q Two (2) o'clock. So after two (2) hours, this representative from the media, the barangay, and the DOJ arrived?
A Yes, Sir.
Q So it was then that they affixed their signature in that inventory prepared by your team?
A Yes, Sir.
Q Yes. So they only went to the place and affixed their signatures?
A Yes, Sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q So would it be correct that only the witnesses to the inventory, the elected official, the media, and the DOJ signed this inventory?
A Yes, Sir.16 (Emphasis supplied)
Third, the prosecution did not show that the inventory was done in the presence of Jimmy and Renan or their representatives. A perusal of the pictures taken during the inventory showing the absence of the accused coupled with the above testimony of Agent Cariño, supports this conclusion. Indeed, records show the inventory was not even signed by both the accused. 17
Nevertheless, compliance with the requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165 may not always be possible under various field conditions. Hence, the IRR of RA 9165 offers a saving clause allowing leniency whenever justifiable grounds exist which warrant deviation from established protocol. 18 However, the saving clause is only triggered upon proof of justifiable grounds and as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The prosecution must first recognize any lapses on the part of the apprehending officers and thereafter explain the cited justifiable grounds. The justifiable explanation must also be credible. Thereafter, the prosecution must show all the links in the chain of custody. 19
In the present case, the prosecution did not explain, much less acknowledge, the lapses on the part of the apprehending officers. A careful perusal of the records of the case did not reveal any justification made by the officers or the prosecution for conducting the inventory at the police station instead of the place of seizure. Nor was there any reason proffered why the required witnesses were merely called in after the arrest of the accused. It must be noted that the officers had every opportunity to secure the presence of the required witnesses as the confidential informant had relayed the information about the supposed illegal activities of Jimmy as early as 8:00 A.M. Agent Cariño even met Jimmy at around 9:00 A.M. to talk about the sale. Lastly, there is no explanation why the inventory was done without the presence of the accused or why the inventory sheet was not signed by them.
Further, the prosecution failed to show all the links in the chain of custody of the seized items. The Court has enumerated the links that the prosecution must establish in the chain of custody of a buy-bust operation: (1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court. 20
The Court notes the absence of the fourth link in this case. There were no stipulations entered into anent the testimony of PSI Gayados, the forensic chemist, and the prosecution failed to present him as a witness to prove the preservation of the integrity of the drugs recovered from the accused. Thus, the Court has no information on the manner as to how the specimens were handled after it came to the possession of the forensic chemist until it was presented in court.
It has been held that "[t]he prosecution's evidence must include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was seized to the time it is offered in court as evidence, such that every person who handled the evidence would acknowledge how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. The same witness would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have its possession. It is from the testimony of every witness who handled the evidence from which a reliable assurance can be derived that the evidence presented in court is one and the same as that seized from the accused." 21
We are aware that the illegal drug seized in this case, four (4) bricks with total weight of 2.995 kg, is by no means minuscule, and that the sheer weight alone lessens the possibility of tampering or switching, the evil being sought to be prevented. However, this by itself, does not eliminate all the probability. And even if We foreclose any possibility of tampering or switching, this still does not justify non-compliance with the requirements of the law. To be sure, the requirements under RA 9165 and its IRR were meant to protect the due process rights of the accused, thus, law enforcers are called upon to strictly observe the same. ACETID
The evident result of the lapses and actuations of the police officers was the non-preservation of the chain of custody, which, in turn, raised serious doubt on the identity and integrity of the drugs seized. Breaches of the procedure contained in Section 21 of RA 9165 insufficiently explained by the State, militate against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the accused as the integrity of the corpus delicti would have been compromised. Serious uncertainty hangs over the identification of the corpus delicti introduced by the prosecution into evidence to convict the accused. 22 Hence, the Court finds the acquittal of accused-appellant Renan proper.
The Court in People v. Royol23 emphasized that "while not losing sight of the urgency of addressing the drug menace, it is this Court's bounden duty to ensure compliance with laws and uphold basic freedoms. This Court has harped on and, in this Decision, continues to impress the need to comply with the bare minimum that the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act requires. As in many cases before, this Court emphasizes that law enforcers' "utter disregard for Section 21 . . . raises grave doubts not only on the integrity of the allegedly seized items, but even on their own." Self-serving assurances cannot replace reliable evidence. Failing compliance with the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, acquittal must ensue."
Lastly, an accused who did not appeal benefits from a judgment obtained by those who instituted an appeal, if the same are favorable and applicable to him or her, 24 as in this case. In line with said doctrine, Jimmy should necessarily benefit from the acquittal of Renan.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated 27 June 2019 promulgated by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10043 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, Jimmy Ibay y Manansala a.k.a. "Jimmy" and Renan Laxamana y Gerona are ACQUITTED of the crime charged and are ORDERED RELEASED immediately unless they are being lawfully held in custody for any other reason.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is likewise ORDERED to REPORT to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution the action he has taken.
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. 21-23; see Notice of Appeal dated 23 July 2019.
2. 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 on 23 January 2002.
3.Rollo, pp. 3-20; penned by Associate Justice Tita Marilyn Payoyo-Villordon, and concurred in by Associate Justices Mario V. Lopez (now a Member of this Court) and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles of the Fourteenth (14th) Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
4.Id. at 3-4.
5.Id. at 5-9; See also CA Records, pp. 67-72.
6. CA rollo, pp. 66-85.
7.Id. at 84.
8.Id. at 72-84.
9.Rollo, p. 19.
10.Id. at 10-19.
11.See People v. Moreno, G.R. No. 234273, 18 September 2019 [Per J. Caguioa].
12. Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, approved on 30 August 2002.
13.See People v. Adobar, 832 Phil. 731, 754 (2018), G.R. No. 222559, 06 June 2018 [Per J. Caguioa].
14. Records, pp. 55-56.
15.Id. at 87.
16.Id. at 252-253.
17.Id. at 14.
18.See People v. Sanico, G.R. No. 240431, 07 July 2020 [Per C.J. Peralta].
19.Supra at note 13 at 758.
20.See People v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 235658, 22 June 2020 [Per J. Gesmundo].
21.People v. Labadan, G.R. No. 237769, 11 March 2019 [Per J. Gesmundo].
22.Supra at note 18.
23. G.R. No. 224297, 13 February 2019.
24.See People v. Cabaya, 411 Phil. 616 (2001), G.R. No. 127129, 20 June 2001 [Per J. Buena].