FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241010. October 6, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. JOEL LEONCITO y BARTOLOME, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated October 6, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 241010 (People of the Philippines v. Joel Leoncito yBartolome). — This is an Appeal 1 from the Decision 2 dated December 22, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08770, affirming the Decision 3 dated September 16, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 218, finding accused-appellant Joel Leoncito y Bartolome (Leoncito) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
The Antecedents
In an Information dated May 4, 2015, Leoncito was charged for violation of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, allegedly committed as follows:
That on or about the 1st day of May 2015, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, without authority of the law, did then and there, willfully and unlawfully sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport, or act as broker in the said transaction, a dangerous drug, to wit: 4.40 (four point four zero) grams of white crystalline substance containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
During arraignment, Leoncito, with assistance of counsel, pleaded not guilty to the offense as charged. HTcADC
After pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued.
For the prosecution, the following witnesses were presented: (1) Police Officer 3 Eladio Pamittan (PO3 Pamittan); (2) Police Chief Inspector Anamelisa Bacani (PCI Bacani); (3) Police Officer 3 Warlito Cagurungan (PO3 Cagurungan); and 4) Barangay Kagawad Francisco Misericordia (Barangay Kagawad Misericordia).
Their salient testimonies, intertwined together, established the following:
On April 30, 2015, at around 12:00 noon, PO3 Pamittan and Police Officer 3 Fernando Salonga (PO3 Salonga) were at their office at District Anti-Illegal Drug-Special Operation Task Force in Camp Caringal, Quezon City, when a confidential informant (CI) arrived and reported about the drug-selling activities of a certain alias "Negro," later identified as Leoncito, who was operating along Don Pepe Street, Barangay Sto. Domingo, Quezon City. 5
Acting thereon, Police Chief Inspector Roberto A. Razon, Sr. (PCI Razon, Sr.) formed a team and conducted a briefing for the conduct of a buy-bust operation. PO3 Pamittan and PO3 Salonga were assigned as the poseur-buyer and back-up arresting officer, respectively. The team then prepared the Coordination Form 6 and Pre-Operation Report. 7 They also prepared the buy-bust money consisting of one piece of genuine P1,000.00-bill and nine pieces of boodle money, representing the total amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00). PO3 Pamittan pre-marked the buy-bust money with his initials, "EP." 8
At around 1:40 p.m. of the same day, the team was about to proceed to the target area, when the CI received a call from Leoncito informing him that the drug deal will be rescheduled to May 1, 2015 because there was no available shabu. 9
Thus, on May 1, 2015 at around 1:00 p.m., the team and the CI, all in civilian clothes, went to Don Pepe Street, Barangay Sto. Domingo, Quezon City, on board a private vehicle. Upon arrival, PO3 Pamittan and the CI alighted from the vehicle and waited for Leoncito. PO3 Salonga remained inside the vehicle that was parked more or less 10-12 meters away from where PO3 Pamittan and the CI were situated. 10
At around 1:30 p.m., Leoncito arrived and approached the CI and PO3 Pamittan. The CI introduced PO3 Pamittan to Leoncito as the buyer of shabu. Leoncito then asked PO3 Pamittan, "magkanoang kukunin mo?" to which PO3 Pamittan replied, "halagang 10thousand lang." PO3 Pamittan then showed to him the money that was placed in a short white envelope. Leoncito took out from the right front pocket of his pants a heat-sealed plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance and handed the same to PO3 Pamittan. In exchange, PO3 Pamittan gave the buy-bust money to Leoncito. At this juncture, PO3 Pamittan made the pre-arranged signal of removing his sunglasses to inform the rest of the team that the sale had been consummated. Immediately, PO3 Salonga rushed to the scene and assisted PO3 Pamittan in arresting Leoncito. PO3 Pamittan apprised him that they are police officers, the reason for his arrest, and his constitutional rights. Upon conducting a body-search, PO3 Salonga recovered the buy-bust money from the right front pocket of Leoncito. 11
At the crime scene, PO3 Pamittan marked the seized evidence with "ENP-JLB-5-1-15" in the presence of PO3 Salonga. When they were about to take pictures of Leoncito and the seized evidence, the latter's relatives and friends arrived who started to hurl stones and shouted invectives at them. This prompted them to bring Leoncito and the seized evidence to the barangay hall of Barangay Sto. Domingo. Thereat, the physical inventory and photograph of the seized evidence were conducted in the presence of Barangay Kagawad Misericordia. 12
Thereafter, they brought Leoncito and the seized evidence to their office. At the police station, police investigator PO3 Cagurungan prepared the Chain of Custody Form, 13 while PCI Razon, Sr. prepared the Request for Laboratory Examination. Afterwards, PO3 Pamittan brought the Request for Laboratory Examination and seized drug to the crime laboratory, which PCI Bacani received. 14 After conducting quantitative and qualitative examination of the specimen, PCI Bacani issued Chemistry Report No. D-362-15 15 stating that the seized illegal drug weighing 4.40 grams tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug.
For the defense, Leoncito was presented as the lone witness. He denied the accusations hurled against him and alleged that on May 1, 2015, he was at home with his live-in partner, Lilian Gonsulado, when armed men, wearing civilian clothes, barged in and claimed that they were looking for a certain "Boy Negro." The armed men instructed him to kneel down and ordered him to put his hands behind his head. While he was following their instructions, he saw someone give to another a plastic sachet containing white substance. Thereafter, he was made to board a vehicle. While inside, the armed men asked him for P150,000.00, otherwise they will file a drug case against him. He told them that he was a mere taxi driver and does not have that amount of money. He was then dropped off at the barangay hall where his photograph was taken. Subsequently, he was brought to Camp Caringal where he was detained. He vehemently denied that he was engaged in the sale of illegal drugs. 16
On September 16, 2016, the RTC rendered a Decision 17 finding Leoncito guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the offense as charged, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the prosecution having established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the Court finds Joel Leoncito y Bartolome GUILTY for Violation of Sec. 5, Art. II, R.A. 9165 and imposes upon him, pursuant to Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. 9165, the penalty of life imprisonment and a FINE of Php500,000.00. He shall be credited with the period of his preventive imprisonment.
The Branch Clerk of Court is hereby directed to transmit to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) the dangerous drug subject of this case for proper disposition and final disposal.
SO ORDERED. 18
In convicting Leoncito, the RTC held that all the elements of illegal sale of shabu were present. The prosecution has established an unbroken chain of custody of the seized evidence in compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. The RTC also debunked Leoncito's bare denial and gave more weight and credit to the positive testimonies of the police officers who are presumed to have regularly performed their official duties. aScITE
At odds with the ruling, Leoncito interposed an appeal before the CA, claiming that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized illegal drug, as well as, compliance with the procedures laid down under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended.
On December 22, 2017, the CA rendered its Decision 19 affirming in toto, the conviction of Leoncito, the decretal portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Appeal is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the Decision dated 16 September 2016 rendered by Branch 218, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED. 20
Similar to the RTC, the CA held that the prosecution has established all the elements of illegal sale of shabu to sustain the conviction of Leoncito. There was also substantial compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. For the CA, the sequence of events, as narrated by the police officers, have likewise established an unbroken chain of custody of the seized evidence from the place of arrest until its presentation in court.
Adamant, Leoncito resorted to this present appeal. In his quest for acquittal, Leoncito maintained that the prosecution failed to establish strict compliance with the procedures for the custody and disposition of the seized illegal drugs under Section 21 of R.A. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640. More specifically, Leoncito harps on the following: (1) failure to conduct the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items immediately at the site; (2) absence of representatives from the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media during the inventory; (3) failure to establish that Barangay Kagawad Misericordia was a local barangay official; and (4) failure to immediately weigh the seized illegal drug during the inventory.
Leoncito further submits that not every link in the chain of custody has been established. There was no indication as to who kept the seized item for safekeeping after its examination by the forensic chemist until its eventual presentation in court. The chain of custody form only showed that the seized illegal drug was turned over by PO3 Pamittan to PCI Bacani, the forensic chemist, but no other entries were made afterwards.
For Leoncito, these procedural lapses are in clear disregard of the safeguards laid down by law and the non-compliance therewith, as well as the failure of the prosecution to give justifiable grounds therefor, warrants his acquittal for the offense as charged.
Our Ruling
After a careful calibration of the parties' arguments and evaluation of the evidence on hand, We find the appeal to be impressed with merit.
In every criminal prosecution, the Constitution affords the accused presumption of innocence until his or her guilt for the crime charged is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution bears the burden of overcoming this presumption and proving the liability of the accused by presenting evidence which shows that all the elements of the crime charged are present. 21
Thus, to successfully prosecute a case for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the prosecution must establish the following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the same.22
Apart from proving the presence of these elements, it is well settled that in cases involving dangerous drugs, the drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction. Essential, therefore, in these cases is that the identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond doubt. 23 Concomitantly, to remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the accused-appellant. 24 The chain of custody rule performs this function as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. 25
In People v. Bangcola, 26 this Court reiterated its previous pronouncement in Mallillin v. People27 as to how the chain of custody over the seized evidence should be maintained, and the testimony needed to establish, the chain of custody, thus:
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe 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. These witnesses 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 possession of the same. 28 (Emphasis supplied)
Pertinently, jurisprudence has identified four critical links in the chain of custody of the confiscated items: 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. 29
Moreover, as part of the chain of custody, Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165 provides the exacting requirements to be observed by the arresting officers in relation to the seizure and custody of illegal drugs. It states:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physicallyinventory and photograph the same in the presence of [a] the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, [b] a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and [c] any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof[.] (Emphasis supplied)
Supplementing this provision is Article II, Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165, which spells out the procedures to be observed by the apprehending officers to ensure the chain of custody, viz.:
(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. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
From the foregoing, it is unmistakably clear that the law provides that: (1) the seized items be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation; and (2) the physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of (a) the accused or his/her representative or counsel, (b) an elected public official, (c) a representative from the media, and (d) a representative from the DOJ, all of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. 30 HEITAD
The law further provides a saving mechanism to ensure that not every case of non-compliance irreversibly prejudices the State's evidence. It explicitly states that non-compliance with the requirements shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over the confiscated items, provided that such non-compliance was under justifiable grounds, and the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer or team.
We note, however, that Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was amended by R.A. No. 10640, 31 which became effective on August 7, 2014, 32 and it essentially added the provisions contained in the IRR, with a few modifications on the witness requirement. In particular, the apprehending team is now required to conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in (1) the presence of the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, (2) with an elected public official, and (3) 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.
Evidently, before the amendment of R.A. No. 9165, three insulating witnesses are required to be present during the inventory and photographing of the seized items, namely: a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official. After such amendment, only two witnesses are required to be present, it could either be an elected public official and representative of the NPS or a representative from the media. 33 The presence of these witnesses is intended to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. 34
In this case, since the alleged offense was committed on May 1, 2015, the applicable law is Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640. Hence, the presence of an elected public official and the media or an NPS representative must be complied with.
After a circumspect scrutiny of the records, this Court finds that there was a serious deviation on the witness requirement as the conduct of the physical inventory and taking of photographs of the seized evidence were not accomplished in the presence of a media or an NPS representative. This can easily be gleaned from the Inventory Receipt 35 and confirmed by the testimony of PO3 Pamittan, who admitted that only a barangay kagawad was present, to wit:
Q: At the Brgy. Office, in doing the preparation of the inventory report, there is no media present there?
A: Yes, Ma'am.
Q: Nor elective official?
A: Brgy. Official only Ma'am.
Q: Who is that Brgy. Official?
A: Kagawad Ma'am. 36
Concededly, the failure of the police officers to obtain the presence of the required witnesses does not automatically render the seized illegal drugs void or inadmissible in evidence. However, in their absence, the prosecution must provide a credible explanation justifying the non-compliance with the rule; otherwise, the saving clause under the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 and now, the amended Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, would not apply. 37
Furthermore, in justifying any departure from the requirement of the insulating witnesses, the police officers are compelled not only to state the reasons for their non-compliance, but must in fact, also convince this Court that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedure, and that under the given circumstances, their actions were reasonable. 38
In this regard, this Court, in People v. Crispo, et al., 39 emphasized that the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under the law, for "a sheer statement that representatives were unavailable without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look for other representatives, given the circumstances is to be regarded as a flimsy excuse." 40
Similarly, in People v. Perez, 41 this Court underscored that non-compliance with the witness requirement may be permitted, if the prosecution proves that the apprehending officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of such witnesses, albeit they eventually failed to appear. While the earnestness of these efforts must be examined on a case-to-case basis, the overarching objective is for this Court to be convinced that the failure to comply was reasonable under the given circumstances.
In this case, however, the prosecution did not even recognize their procedural lapse or proffer any justified reason as to why the buy-bust team failed to secure the presence of the required witnesses. As this was a buy-bust operation, it is by nature a planned activity — the police officers had every chance to comply with the procedural requirements of the law. 42 Verily, had they exerted the slightest efforts, they could have easily gathered the required witnesses.
Furthermore, the buy-bust operation was rescheduled from April 30, 2015 to May 1, 2015. Evidently, this gave the buy-bust team more than sufficient time to make the necessary arrangements beforehand, knowing fully well that they were strictly required to comply with the requirements of the law. However, not even an attempt to do so was made as they simply and blatantly ignored the witness requirement.
On this score, the absence of a representative from the media or NPS is inexcusable. It constitutes a substantial gap in the chain of custody and raises doubts on the integrity and evidentiary value of the items that were allegedly seized from accused-appellant. It militates against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
In a plethora of cases, 43 it has been repeatedly held that the presence of the required insulating witnesses at the time of the inventory is mandatory, and that their presence threat serves both a crucial and a critical purpose. Indeed, under the law, the presence of the so-called insulating witnesses is a high prerogative requirement, the non-fulfillment of which casts serious doubts upon the integrity of the corpus delicti itself — the very prohibited substance itself — and for that reason imperils and jeopardizes the prosecution's case.
Moreover, records disclose that the inventory and taking of photographs of the seized evidence were not conducted immediately at the place of arrest but at the barangay hall of Sto. Domingo. PO3 Pamittan explained that when the police officers were about to take pictures of accused-appellant and the evidence, his relatives and friends arrived and started to hurl stones and shouted invectives at them. This prompted them to bring Leoncito and the seized evidence to the barangay hall of Barangay Sto. Domingo for the conduct of inventory. 44 ATICcS
The IRR of R.A. No. 9165 enumerates alternative places for conducting the inventory of the seized evidence, that is, at the nearest police station or nearest office of the apprehending officer/team. However, the requirement of having the required witnesses to be physically present not only during the inventory of the seized evidence but also at the time or near the place of apprehension, is indispensable. 45
The rationale of the law in mandating the presence of the required witnesses at the time or near the place of apprehension was explained in People v. Tomawis, 46 in this wise:
x x x. The reason is simple, it is at the time of arrest — or at the time of the drugs "seizure and confiscation" — that the presence of the three witnesses is most needed, as it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would insulate against the police practice of planting evidence. 47
Indeed, 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. 48 Having their presence only at a very late stage reduces them to passive automatons, utilized merely to lend hollow legitimacy by belatedly affixing signatures on final inventory documents despite lacking authentic knowledge on the items confronting them. They are then reduced to rubber stamps, oblivious as to how the dangers sought to be avoided by their presence may have already transpired. 49
Here, none of the required witnesses were present at the time of apprehension, seizure and marking of the seized illegal drug. Barangay Kagawad Misericordia, the sole witness, was only at the barangay hall to witness the physical inventory but he did not personally observe the supposed sale, arrest, seizure, marking or more importantly, the origin of the confiscated illegal drug. In fact, the parties entered into a stipulation that he has "no personal knowledge as to the ultimate source of the item allegedly seized from accused and the item which was inventoried." 50 Evidently, his belated participation in the operation has not achieved the purpose of the law in requiring the presence of the witnesses, that is to ensure the prevention of tampering, switching and planting of evidence. His signature on the inventory receipt is, therefore, rendered meaningless. It is as if there was no witness to the inventory evidence against the accused-appellant. 51
On this note, it bears stressing that the mere marking of the seized drugs, as well as the conduct of an inventory, in violation of the strict procedure requiring the presence of the accused, the media, and responsible government functionaries, fails to approximate compliance with Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The presence of these personalities and the immediate marking and conduct of physical inventory after seizure and confiscation in full view of the accused and the required witnesses cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality, 52 or worse, ignored as an impediment to the conviction of illegal drug suspects. 53 Neither can the breaches in procedure be remedied by the simple allegation of substantial compliance or invocation of presumption of regularity.
Here, both the RTC and the CA merely glossed over these procedural lapses by relying on substantial compliance and presumption of regularity of official duties.
It is well to remind that judicial reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty despite the lapses in the procedures undertaken by the agents of the law is fundamentally flawed because the lapses themselves are affirmative proofs of irregularity. 54 It bears repeating that in drugs cases, this presumption arises only when there is a showing that the apprehending officer/team followed the requirements of Section 21, or when the saving clause is successfully triggered. 55 The invocation of the presumption of regularity was not designed to cure unjustified lapses in the apprehension and seizure pursuant to drug operations. Instead, this presumption holds only until proof to the contrary is shown, as in this case, and may not overcome the stronger presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. 56 ETHIDa
All told, the plurality and blatant breaches committed by the police officers, unacknowledged and unexplained by the State are sufficient to cast reasonable doubt on the guilt of accused-appellant. In keeping with the constitutional presumption of innocence, the acquittal of accused-appellant for the offense as charged must forthwith issue.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated December 22, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08770 is REVERSED and SETASIDE. Accused-appellant Joel Leoncito y Bartolome is hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is ORDERED to cause his IMMEDIATE RELEASE, unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason, and is DIRECTED to INFORM this Court of the action taken thereon within five (5) days from receipt hereof. Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
Let copies be likewise FURNISHED to the Police General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information.
SO ORDERED." J. Gaerlandesignated as AdditionalMember viceJ. Lazaro-Javierper Raffle dated September 22, 2021.
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. 12-14.
2.Id. at 2-11. Penned by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda, with Associate Justices Amy C. Lazaro-Javier and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now all members of this Court), concurring.
3.Id. at 53-57. Penned by Presiding Judge Luis Zenon Q. Maceren.
4. Records, p. 3.
5. TSN, March 14, 2016, p. 3; TSN, October 27, 2015, pp. 3-4; Joint Affidavit of Arrest of PO3 Fernando Salonga and PO3 Eladia Pamittan, records, p. 9.
6. Records, p. 12.
7.Id. at 13.
8. TSN, March 14, 2016, p. 4; TSN, October 27, 2015, pp. 4-7; Joint Affidavit of Arrest of PO3 Fernando Salonga and PO3 Eladia Pamittan, records, p. 9.
9.Id. at 4-5; 8.
10.Id. at 5-6; 8-10.
11.Id. at 6-7, 10; Id. at 10-14; Id. at 9-10.
12.Id. at 7-8; Id. at 14-18; Id. at 10; Inventory of Seized/Confiscated Item/Property, records, p. 23.
13. Records, p. 21.
14. TSN, October 27, 2015, pp. 19-21, 39; Joint Affidavit of Arrest of PO3 Fernando Salonga and PO3 Eladio Pamittan, id. at 10.
15. Records, p. 18.
16. TSN, June 2, 2016, pp. 3-8.
17. CA rollo, pp. 53-57.
18.Id. at 57.
19.Rollo, pp. 2-11.
20.Id. at 10.
21.People v. Macud, 822 Phil. 1016, 1027 (2017).
22.People v. Arriola, 681 Phil. 578, 587-588 (2012). (Emphasis supplied).
23.People v. Hilario, 823 Phil. 580, 605 (2018).
24.People v. Badilla, 794 Phil. 263, 276-277 (2016).
25.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017).
26. G.R. No. 237802, March 18, 2019.
27. 576 Phil. 576 (2008).
28.Supra note 26.
29.Supra note 21, at 1029.
30.People v. Ordiz, G.R. No. 206767, September 11, 2019.
31. "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." As the Court noted in People v. Gutierrez (see G.R. No. 236304, November 5, 2018), RA 10640 was approved on July 15, 2014. Under Section 5 thereof, it shall "take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation." RA 10640 was published on July 23, 2014 in The Philippine Star (Vol. XXVIII, No. 359, Philippine Star Metro section, p. 21) and Manila Bulletin (Vol. 499, No. 23; World News section, p. 6). Thus, RA 10640 appears to have become effective on August 7, 2014.
32. See People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 236304, November 5, 2018.
33.People v. Angeles, G.R. No. 224223, November 20, 2019.
34.Id.
35. Records, p. 23.
36. TSN, October 27, 2015, p. 38.
37.People v. Año, 828 Phil. 439, 451 (2018).
38.Grefaldo v. People, G.R. No. 246362, November 11, 2019.
39. 828 Phil. 416-438 (2018).
40.Id. at 436.
41. G.R. No. 241261, July 29, 2019.
42.Limbo v. People, G.R. No. 238299, July 1, 2019.
43.People v. Manansala, G.R. No. 229509, July 3, 2019; People v. Tomawis, 830 Phil. 385 (2018); People v. Callejo, 832 Phil. 881 (2018).
44. TSN, March 14, 2016, pp. 8-9; Joint Affidavit of Arrest of PO3 Fernando Salonga and PO3 Eladia Pamittan, records, p. 10.
45.People v. Bangcola, supra note 26.
46.Supra note 43.
47.Id. at 405.
48.Id. at 409.
49.People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 238339, August 7, 2019.
50. RTC Decision, p. 2: rollo, p. 54.
51. See Padas v. People, G.R. No. 244327, October 14, 2019.
52.People v. Dela Victoria, 829 Phil. 675, 689 (2018).
53.People v. Ching, 819 Phil. 565, 581 (2017).
54.Edangalino v. People, G.R. No. 235110, January 8, 2020.
55.People v. Mola, 830 Phil. 364, 383 (2018).
56.People v. Milana, G.R. No. 233747, December 5, 2018.