People v. Ledesma y Villanueva

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 248996. December 1, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EMELITA LEDESMA y VILLANUEVA, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 01 December 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 248996 (People of the Philippines v. Emelita Ledesma y Villanueva). — This appeal 1 assails the March 7, 2019 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09630, which affirmed the July 7, 2017 Judgment 3 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 03, Balanga City, Bataan (RTC) in Criminal Case Nos. 13401 and 13402, finding accused-appellant Emelita Ledesma y Villanueva (Ledesma) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, 4 otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," as amended.

Version of the Prosecution:

The prosecution presented the following witnesses: Forensic Chemist/Police Senior Inspector Christine Joy V. Sia (Forensic Chemist/PSI Sia), Police Officer (PO) 3 Alex Buenaventura (PO3 Buenaventura), and PO1 Sheryll Cruz (PO1 Cruz). 5

At around seven in the morning of March 8, 2013, PO3 Buenaventura was on duty at the Provincial Intelligence Branch at Camp Tolentino, Balanga City, Bataan when a confidential asset arrived and relayed the information that Ledesma was engaged in the sale of illegal drugs along Roman Expressway in Bilolo, Orion, Bataan. Acting thereon, PO3 Buenaventura, together with PO1 Ronnie Santos and PO1 Cruz planned a buy-bust operation on the same day to apprehend the drug peddler. During the briefing, PO3 Buenaventura was designated as poseur-buyer while the rest of the team would serve as back-up. PO3 Buenaventura prepared a·P500-bill bearing Serial No. KB967500 to be used as buy-bust money which he marked with his initials "ABB." 6

Before the team was dispatched, the police officers coordinated the entrapment operation with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) through Pre-Operation Report 7 and Certificate of Coordination 8 both dated March 08, 2013. Thereafter, the team, along with the confidential informant, proceeded to the target area. Upon arrival thereat, PO3 Buenaventura and the confidential informant walked towards the agreed meeting place while the other members of the team positioned themselves about eight to nine meters away from PO3 Buenaventura. 9

Afterwards, Ledesma, together with a female companion who was later identified as Flordeliza Clemente y Barrientos (Clemente) arrived and told PO3 Buenaventura that she has the shabu. Ledesma demanded for the payment of the merchandise to which PO3 Buenaventura immediately obliged. Upon receipt of the buy-bust money, Ledesma handed over one plastic sachet to PO3 Buenaventura. At this juncture, PO3 Buenaventura introduced himself as a police officer and arrested Ledesma who voluntarily handed to PO3 Buenaventura the other sachets of shabu which she took out from her bra. Thereafter, the other police operatives rushed to the target area and assisted PO3 Buenaventura in arresting the suspects. PO1 Cruz handcuffed Clemente, while PO1 Santos informed them of their constitutional rights. 10

After the arrest, the team brought the suspects to the Orion Municipal Police Station (MPS) where PO1 Cruz conducted a body search upon them. PO1 Cruz recovered from Clemente's bra one small plastic sachet containing suspected shabu. Afterwards, PO3 Buenaventura marked the plastic sachet sold to him with Ledesma's initials "EVL" while the other 18 plastic sachets confiscated from the possession of Ledesma were marked as "EVL-1 to 18." On the other hand, PO1 Cruz marked the plastic sachet recovered from Clemente with the latter's initials "FBC." 11

A physical inventory of the seized items was conducted in front of the suspects and in the presence of Department of Justice (DOJ) representative Esperanza A. Sanchez, Barangay Chairman Reynaldo Baluyot and Barangay Kagawad Rodolfo de Guzman, and media representative Danny Cumilang, who all signed the inventory receipt. 12 Photographs 13 of the confiscated items together with the suspects were also taken. Thereafter, PO3 Buenaventura and PO1 Santos prepared a Request for Laboratory Examination 14 of the drug specimens, as well as a Request for Drug Test 15 on the urine samples of Ledesma and Clemente. Subsequently, PO3 Buenaventura and PO1 Santos personally delivered the said requests and the seized sachets of shabu to the Balanga Philippine National Police (PNP) Provincial Crime Laboratory for chemical examination. The specimens were received by PSI Sia who conducted a qualitative examination thereof. The drug tests on the suspects yielded negative for drugs, 16 while the laboratory examination conducted by PSI Sia showed that the contents of the plastic sachets yielded positive result for the presence methamphetamine hydrochloride, a prohibited drug as per Chemistry Report No. D-046-13 Bataan 17 dated March 8, 2013.

On March 11, 2013, an Information 18 was filed charging Clemente with violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, the accusatory portion of which reads:

Criminal Case No. 13400:

That on or about March 8, 2013, in Orion, Bataan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there willfully has in her possession, custody and control one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride commonly known as "shabu," weighing ZERO POINT TWO SEVEN TWO NINE (0.2729) GRAM, a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 19

On the other hand, Ledesma was indicted in two separate Informations 20 for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165, respectively, allegedly committed as follows:

Criminal Case No. 13401:

That on or about March 8, 2013, in Orion, Bataan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there willfully has in her possession, custody and control eighteen (18) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing methamphetamine hydrochloride[,] commonly known as "shabu"[,] having a total weight of ONE POINT EIGHT TWO ONE ONE (1.8211) GRAMS, a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 21

Criminal Case No. 13402:

That on or about March 8, 2013, in Orion, Bataan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there willfully sell, distribute and give away to another one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride[,] commonly known as ''shabu"[,] weighing ZERO POINT ZERO FOUR EIGHT EIGHT (0.0488) GRAM, a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 22

Ledesma and Clemente entered pleas of not guilty to the charges during the arraignment. 23

Version of the Defense:

Ledesma and Clemente interposed the defense of denial and frame-up. They claimed that on March 8, 2013 at around 6:00 in the morning, they traveled from Manila to Bilolo, Orion, Bataan to visit Clemente's niece. They dropped by the house of Clemente's friend but no one was around so they decided to leave. When they were about to leave, Ledesma received a call from her friend's brother-in-law who told them to wait for his wife to fetch them. 24

While waiting, a vehicle suddenly arrived and four police officers alighted, pointed their guns at them and instructed them to raise their hands and face the car. At this point, the law enforcers told them to hand over the shabu. When Ledesma denied having illegal drugs in their possession, they were brought and detained at Camp Balanga where they were informed that they would be facing charges for drug-related offenses. On March 19, 2013, they were transferred to Bataan District Jail and were forced to admit to the charges filed against them. 25

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:

In a Judgment 26 dated July 7, 2017, the RTC found Ledesma guilty as charged while Clemente was exonerated for insufficiency of evidence. The RTC gave full faith and credence to the straightforward testimony of PO3 Buenaventura who gave a detailed account of what transpired during the buy-bust operation. It held that, as opposed to Ledesma's bare denials, the prosecution adduced sufficient proof to show that all the elements of the crimes were present 27 and that the chain of custody over the seized drugs remained unbroken. 28

The RTC also rejected Ledesma's defenses of denial and frame-up for being inherently weak. It noted that aside from the bare allegations of frame-up, no other evidence was presented to show that the apprehending officers harbored any ill motive against Ledesma to falsely implicate her. 29

The decretal portion of the RTC's Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, this Court rules as follows:

1. For Criminal Case No. 13400, accused FLORDELIZA CLEMENTE y BARRIENTOS is ACQUITTED of the charge of Violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 for insufficiency of evidence.

The surety bond posted by accused FLORDELIZA CLEMENTE y BARRIENTOS under Commonwealth Insurance Company is ordered cancelled.

2. For Criminal Case No. 13401, accused EMELITA LEDESMA y VILLANUEVA is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the charge for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, sentencing her to suffer imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) days (sic) to twenty (20) years, and to pay a fine in the amount of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php300,000.00).

3. For Criminal Case No. 13402, x x x accused EMELITA LEDESMA y VILLANUEVA is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the charge for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, sentencing her to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php500,000.00).

4. Being a detention prisoner, the accused EMELITA LEDESMA y VILLANUEVA is entitled to full credit of the entire period of her preventive imprisonment, in accordance with Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 6127, provided she had agreed in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, otherwise, with only four-fifths (4/5) thereof.

5. The Branch Clerk of Court is directed to turned (sic) over the One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing Metahamphetamine (sic) Hydrochloride commonly known as shabu, with the total weight of ZERO POINT TWO SEVEN TWO NINE (0.2729) GRAMS, subject of Criminal Case No. 13400; the Eighteen (18) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing Metahamphetamine (sic) Hydrochloride commonly known as shabu, with the total weight of ONE POINT EIGHT TWO ONE ONE (1.8211) GRAMS, subject of Criminal Case No. 13401; and the One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets (sic) containing Metahamphetamine (sic) Hydrochloride commonly known as shabu, with the total weight of ZERO POINT ZERO FOUR EIGHT EIGHT (0.0488) GRAMS, subject of Criminal Case No. 13402, to the Dangerous Drugs Board for proper disposal.

SO ORDERED. 30

Aggrieved, Ledesma appealed 31 before the CA raising the following errors, to wit:

I.

THE COURT AQUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE DESPITE THE POLICE OFFICERS' NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 21, ARTICLE II, R.A. NO. 9165.

II.

THE COURT AQUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE DESPITE THE POLICE OFFICERS' FAILURE TO ESTABLISH THE UNBROKEN CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF THE ALLEGED SEIZED DRUG.

III.

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE THE IDENTITY AND INTEGRITY OF THE CORPORA DELICTI.

IV.

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE OFFENSES CHARGED DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HER GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. 32

Ruling of the Court of Appeals:

The CA, in its assailed Decision 33 dated March 7, 2019, affirmed the RTC's ruling which found Ledesma guilty of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs. It noted that there was substantial compliance with the established procedure on the custody of dangerous drugs. Contrary to Ledesma's claim that the police officers failed to submit the seized items to the Crime Laboratory within 24 hours from seizure, the CA held that the documentary evidence show that the confiscation of the illegal drugs and the turnover of specimens to the Crime Laboratory for confirmatory testing all transpired on March 8, 2013 or within the same day of seizure. Thus, there is no basis for Ledesma to claim that there was undue delay in the delivery of the seized drugs to the Crime Laboratory. The CA likewise rejected Ledesma's contention that there was violation of the Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operations and Investigations holding that the same is not a substantive law, but are mere guidelines issued by the executive arm of the government in the implementation of the provisions of RA 9165.

Dissatisfied with the CA's Decision, Ledesma filed a Notice of Appeal 34 before this Court.

Issue

The issue in this case is whether or not Ledesma is guilty of Illegal Sale and Possession of shabu.

Ledesma argues that there was failure on the part of the buy-bust team to strictly comply with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. Given the flagrant procedural lapses committed by the apprehending officers in handling the seized drugs, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were compromised thereby warranting her acquitta1. 35

In sum, the defense contends that Ledesma must be acquitted on account of the failure of the apprehending officers to comply with the chain of custody requirement in dangerous drugs cases.

Our Ruling

The appeal is meritorious. Accordingly, Ledesma is acquitted.

Elements of illegal sale of

To successfully prosecute the offense of Sale of Illegal Drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the following elements must be present: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 36 In a buy-bust operation, the receipt by the poseur-buyer of the dangerous drug and the corresponding receipt by the seller of the marked money consummate the Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs. What matters is the proof that the sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited drug, the corpus delicti, as evidence. 37

In the present case, there is no question that all the elements of the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs are present. The identity of Ledesma as the drug seller was duly established through the testimony of the poseur-buyer, PO3 Buenaventura who positively identified Ledesma as the one who transacted and sold to him one sachet of shabu in exchange of the marked P500.00-bill as payment. As per Chemistry Report No. D-046-13 Bataan 38 prepared by Forensic Chemist Sia, the sachet of shabu sold by Ledesma to PO3 Buenaventura yielded positive result for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. Finally, the illegal drug and the marked money were presented and identified in court.

Elements of illegal possession of

Similarly, the prosecution had adequately established the existence of all the elements for the offense of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II of the RA 9165, to wit: (1) the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs; (2) such possession was not authorized by law; and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of dangerous drugs. 39

It must be noted that possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi, which is sufficient to convict Ledesma, unless there is a satisfactory explanation for such possession. The burden of evidence is, thus, shifted to Ledesma to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi. 40

In the case at bar, the illegal possession of Ledesma came about when she voluntarily handed over to PO3 Buenaventura the other 18 small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substances suspected to be shabu after the consummation of the sale. 41 Nowhere in the records was it shown that Ledesma was lawfully authorized to possess the dangerous drugs. Clearly, Ledesma knowingly possessed the same, without any legal authority to do so, in violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165.

Nonetheless, Ledesma must be acquitted for failure of the arresting officers to properly comply with the chain of custody rule.

Compliance with the Chain of

In illegal drugs cases, the drugs seized from the accused constitute the corpus delicti of the offense. Thus, it is of utmost importance that the integrity and identity of the seized drugs must be clearly shown to have been duly preserved with moral certainty. "This means that on top of the elements of [P]ossession or [I]llegal sale, the fact that the substance illegally sold or possessed is, in the first instance, the very substance adduced in court must likewise be established with the same exacting degree of certitude as that required in sustaining a conviction." 42 ''The chain of custody rule performs this function as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed." 43

In the case at bar, We find that the prosecution failed to establish the corpus delicti of the crime beyond reasonable doubt as there were significant gaps in the chain of custody.

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 the 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. 44

Here, the prosecution failed to sufficiently establish the first link in the chain of custody due to the failure of the buy-bust team to mark the drugs immediately after seizure from Ledesma. The seized drugs were marked only at the police station and the prosecution offered no reasonable explanation therefor. 45

We have consistently held that failure of the authorities to immediately mark the seized drugs raises reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti and suffices to rebut the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. Failure to mark the drugs immediately after they were seized from the accused casts doubt on the prosecution evidence, warranting acquittal on reasonable doubt. 46

Moreover, to prevent switching or contamination, the Implementing Rules and Regulations Guidelines of RA 9165 define marking as the "placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initial and signature on the item/s seized." 47 In the present case, an examination of the List of Seized or Confiscated Items 48 reveals that the initials inscribed on the sachets of shabu bought and recovered from Ledesma were those of accused-appellant's and not the apprehending officer or poseur-buyer.

In People v. Rasos, Jr., 49 the Court considered as a deviation from the IRR Guidelines the use by the apprehending officer of the initials of the accused in marking the sachets of shabu instead of the arresting officer's initials as required in the IRR Guidelines, viz.:

Lastly, to prevent switching or contamination, the IRR Guidelines require that "[t]he marking is the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initial and signature on the item/s seized."

The photograph of the two sachets allegedly retrieved by the police indubitably shows that the initials inscribed on the sachets are those of Rasos, Jr. and not the apprehending officer/poseur-buyer. Nor were the sachets signed by the latter. 50

In the same vein, compliance with the fourth link in the chain of custody was not satisfactorily demonstrated by the prosecution. The last link involves the submission of the seized drugs by the forensic chemist to the court when presented as evidence in the criminal case. 51 In the instant case, it must be recalled that the trial court dispensed with the testimony of PSI Sia, the forensic chemist, in view of the stipulation entered into by the prosecution and the defense during the hearing of the case on January 29, 2015. 52

In People v. Ubungen, 53 the Court ruled that:

In case of a stipulation by the parties to dispense with the attendance and testimony of the forensic chemist, it should be stipulated that the forensic chemist would have testified that he took the precautionary steps required in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item, thus: (1) that the forensic chemist received the seized article as marked, properly sealed, and intact; (2) that he resealed it after examination of the content; and (3) that he placed his own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered pending trial. 54

In this case, the stipulated testimony of Forensic Chemist Sia is bereft of the aforesaid conditions. In particular, the Order dated January 29, 2015 of the trial court that dispensed with the testimony of Forensic Chemist Sia contained only the following stipulation of facts:

P/SINSP. CHRISTINE JOY V. SIA, whose testimony was subject to stipulation by the defense counsel and public prosecutor, narrated to wit:

1. The Chief of the Bataan Provincial Crime Laboratory Office brought the specimen subject of Chemistry Report No. D-046-13 Bataan;

2. That it was P/SInsp. Christine Joy V. Sia who examined the specimens mentioned in her Chemistry Report No. D-046-13 Bataan;

3. Admissions as to the findings and conclusions made in the said Chemistry Report;

4. The existence and due execution of Chemistry Report No. D-046-13 Bataan;

5. The existence and due execution of the Request for Laboratory Examination dated March 8, 2013;

6. The said request was the basis of P/SInsp. Christine Joy V. Sia to make the Chemistry Report after examining the specimens mentioned therein;

7. P/SInsp. Christine Joy V. Sia does not have any personal knowledge as to the source of the alleged drug specimen subject of this case;

8. P/SInsp. Christine Joy V. Sia does not have any personal knowledge as to the circumstances surrounding the alleged buy-bust operation. 55

While it was established that PO3 Buenaventura turned over the drug specimens to Forensic Chemist Sia, the latter, however, failed to testify in court as to how the drugs were kept while in her custody until it was transferred to the court. Instead of personally testifying in court on the safekeeping of the drugs, the parties resorted to a general stipulation of the forensic chemist's testimony. To reiterate, the stipulated testimony of Forensic Chemist Sia only covered her conduct of examination of the specimens and the existence and execution of Chemistry Report No. D-046-13 Bataan. To Our minds, such stipulated facts are inadequate to establish the last link in the chain of custody.

Consequently, the failure of the prosecution to put Forensic Chemist Sia on the witness stand created nagging questions about the post-examination custody that were left unanswered by the prosecution evidence, particularly, as to who exercised custody and possession of the specimens after the chemical examination and how they were handled, stored and safeguarded pending their presentation as evidence in court. The failure of the prosecution to provide details pertaining to the said post-examination custody of the seized items created a gap in the chain of custody which again raised reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti. 56

Moreover, based on the stipulated testimony of Forensic Chemist Sia, it was stated that the specimens subject of this case were transmitted to the trial court by the Chief of the Bataan Provincial Crime Laboratory Office (Chief of the Crime Laboratory). 57 However, there was no indication whatsoever as to who the Chief of the Crime Laboratory was. It was not clear whether the Chief of the Crime Laboratory and Forensic Chemist Sia are one and the same person. We are thus left to venture into speculation and guesswork as to the identity of the Chief of the Crime Laboratory who brought the specimens to the court.

Further, it was not established as to where the Chief of the Crime Laboratory got the specimens that he/she transmitted to the court. Unfortunately, as in the case of Forensic Chemist Sia, the prosecution likewise failed to put him/her on the witness stand to testify as regards what happened to the drug evidence after the qualitative examination conducted thereon.

Consequently, there was a missing link from the point when the drugs were in the hands of Forensic Chemist Sia to the point when the same were submitted to the court. Thus, it was not convincingly shown whether the specimens submitted to the court were the same plastic sachets of shabu that were actually recovered from appellant.

Absent any testimony regarding the management, storage, and preservation of the illegal drugs allegedly seized herein after their qualitative examination, the fourth link in the chain of custody of the said illegal drugs could not be reasonably established. 58

The prosecution also cannot just rely on the saving clause 59 provided in Section 21 of the IRR of RA 9165. The saving clause requires showing of justifiable grounds for non-compliance and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. 60 In this case, however, the prosecution did not only fail to offer justifiable grounds for the procedural lapses committed by the apprehending team in the handling of the seized drugs, they also failed to prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved despite this lapse in the procedure.

In view of the multiple unexplained breaches of procedure committed by the police officers in the seizure, custody and handling of the seized drugs, we hold that the prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti of the crimes charged. Failing in this aspect, the acquittal of Ledesma is hereby warranted.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The assailed March 7, 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09630 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Emelita Ledesma y Villanueva is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. She is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless she is confined for any other lawful cause.

Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women, Mandaluyong City, for immediate implementation. Furthermore, the Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women, Mandaluyong City is DIRECTED to report to this Court the action he/she has taken within five days from receipt of this Resolution.

Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.

The Court further resolves to NOTE the:

a) Letter dated February 5, 2021 by Acting Superintendent Virginia S. Mangawit, Correctional Institution for Women, Mandaluyong City, confirming the confinement of accused-appellant Emelita Ledesma y Villanueva in the said institution since July 14, 2018; and

b) Separate Manifestations (In lieu of Supplemental Briefs) by counsel for accused-appellant dated March 9, 2021 and by the Office of the Solicitor General dated March 22, 2021, both adopting their respective briefs filed before the Court of Appeals as their supplemental briefs as the same have adequately discussed all the relevant factual and legal issues in the instant case.

SO ORDERED." (Gaerlan, J. and Dimaampao, J., no part due to prior action in the Court of Appeals, J.Y. Lopez, J. and Lazaro-Javier, J., designated additional Members respectively per November 15, 2021 Raffle.)

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 24-26. Captioned as Notice of Appeal.

2.Id. at 3-23. Penned by Associate Justice Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig with Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez, concurring.

3. CA rollo, pp. 56-72. Docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 13401 & 13402 and penned by Presiding Judge Marion Jacqueline P. Poblete.

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" (2002).

5. Records, p. 32.

6. Records (Criminal Case No. 13400), pp. 4-5. Pinagsamang Sinumpaang-Salaysay ng Pag-Aresto.

7.Id. at 9.

8.Id. at 7.

9. Records (Criminal Case No. 13400), p. 4.

10.Id.

11.Id. at 5-6.

12.Id. at 11.

13.Id. at 12-14.

14.Id. at 142.

15.Id. at 15.

16.Id. at 17. Chemistry Report No. DT-067-13 & DT-068-13 BATAAN dated March 8, 2013.

17.Id. at 141.

18. Records Criminal Case No. 13400), pp. 1-2.

19.Id. at 1.

20. Records (Criminal Case No. 13401), pp. 1-2; Records (Criminal Case No. 13402), pp. 1-2.

21. Records (Criminal Case No. 13401), p. 1.

22. Records (Criminal Case No. 13402), p. 1.

23. Records (Criminal Case No. 13400), p. 26; Records (Criminal Case No. 13401), p. 24.

24. Records (Criminal Case No. 13400), p. 168.

25.Id. at 170. Panghukumang Salaysay of Emelita V. Ledesma.

26. CA rollo, pp. 56-72.

27.Id. at 69.

28.Id. at 68.

29.Id.

30.Id. at 71-72.

31.Id. at 19.

32.Id. at 41-42.

33.Rollo, pp. 3-23.

34.Id. at 24-26.

35.Id. at 52. Brief for the Accused-appellant.

36.People v. Buesa, G.R. No. 237850, September 16, 2020.

37.People v. Baluyot, G.R. No. 243390, October 5, 2020.

38. Records (Criminal Case No. 13400), p. 141.

39.Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 686 Phil. 137, 148 (2012).

40.People v. Lucio, 711 Phil. 591, 605 (2013).

41. TSN, September 8, 2015, p. 20.

42.People v. Adrid, 705 Phil. 654, 670 (2013).

43.Fajardo v. People, 691 Phil. 752, 758-759 (2012).

44.People v. Diputado, 813 Phil. 160, 171 (2017).

45. Records (Criminal Case No. 13400), p. 5. Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay ng Pag-Aresto.

46.People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024, 1049-1050 (2012), citing People v. Coreche, 612 Phil. 1238 (2009).

47. IRR Guidelines, Section A.1.2. Underscoring supplied.

48. Records (Criminal Case No. 13400), p. 11.

49. G.R. No. 243639, September 18, 2019.

50.Id.

51.People v. Dahil and Castro, 750 Phil. 212, 221 (2015).

52. Records (Criminal Case No. 13400), pp. 48-49. Order dated January 29, 2015.

53. 836 Phil. 888, 901 (2018), citing People v. Pajarin, 654 Phil. 461 (2011).

54.Id.

55. Records (Criminal Case No. 13400), pp. 48-49. Order dated January 29, 2015.

56.People v. Mirondo, 771 Phil. 345, 364 (2015), citing People v. Coreche, 612 Phil. 1238, 1250 (2009).

57. Records (Criminal Case No. 13400), pp. 48-49. Order dated January 29, 2015.

58.People v. Ubungen, supra note 53 at 902.

59. 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.

60.People v. Baluyot, supra note 37.