SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 237051. November 10, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ROMEO LIQUETE y ANG, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 November 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 237051 (People of the Philippines v. Romeo Liquete y Ang). — For resolution is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated August 30, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08362. The CA affirmed with modification the Decision 2 dated April 15, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), First Judicial Region, Branch 20, Vigan City, Ilocos Sur in Criminal Case Nos. 7276-V-2013, 7277-V-2013, and 7283-V-2013, finding accused-appellant Romeo Liquete y Ang (Liquete) guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violations of Sections 5, 11, and 15 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Antecedent Facts
Liquete was charged in three (3) separate Informations 3 dated November 29, 2013 with violations of Sections 5, 11, and 15 of R.A. No. 9165, which read:
Criminal Case No. 7276-V-2013
That on or about the 2nd day of October, 2013 in the City of Vigan, Province of Ilocos Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without having been duly authorized by law, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to a poseur buyer 1.7701 grams, more or less of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride otherwise known as "SHABU," a dangerous drug. CAIHTE
Contrary to law.
Criminal Case No. 7277-V-2013
That on or about the 2nd day of October, 2013 in the City of Vigan, Province of Ilocos Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without having been duly authorized by law, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, control and custody 12.4784 grams, more or less of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride otherwise known as "SHABU," a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law.
Criminal Case No. 7283-V-2013
That on or about the 2nd day of October, 2013 in the City of Vigan, Province of Ilocos Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without having been duly authorized by law, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously use Methamphetamine Hydrochloride otherwise known as "SHABU," a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law.
Liquete was arraigned on January 23, 2014 for Criminal Case No. 7276-V-2013 and pleaded not guilty to the charge. He was arraigned on February 27, 2014 for Criminal Case Nos. 7277-V-2013 and 7283-V-2013 and likewise pleaded not guilty to the two (2) charges. 4
On May 6, 2014, the RTC consolidated Criminal Case Nos. 7276-V-2013, 7277-V-2013, and 7283-V-2013 with the following: Criminal Case Nos. 7278-V and 7282-V against Terencio Florendo y Gonzales (Florendo), Criminal Case Nos. 7284-V and 7336-V against Rustico Monzon y Palapala (Monzon), and Criminal Case Nos. 7285-V and 7335-V against Bartolome Piano y Oliva (Piano). Pre-trial was held on May 29, 2014, where the parties stipulated on the following: the jurisdiction of the lower court; the identity of Liquete; that Liquete knows Florendo, Monzon, and Piano; that Liquete knows the house of the family of Florendo; and that Liquete, Florendo, Monzon, and Piano were at the said house in the afternoon of October 2, 2013. 5 Trial on the merits thereafter ensued. 6
The prosecution presented as its witnesses Forensic Chemist Aroma Icban Mamaradlo (Forensic Chemist Mamaradlo), IO1 Beverly Peralta (IO1 Peralta), Hazel Grace Nanay (Nanay), IO1 Chester P. Oandasan (IO1 Oandasan), and IO1 Louie Fernandez (IO1 Fernandez). 7
On the other hand, the defense presented Liquete as its sole witness. 8
The RTC granted the request of the respective defense counsels of Liquete, Florendo, Monzon, and Piano to adopt the testimonies of the witnesses presented in the bail proceedings of Florendo in Criminal Case Nos. 7278-V and 7282-V. 9
Evidence for the Prosecution
Forensic Chemist Mamaradlo testified that she, a Forensic Chemist of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), received on October 2, 2013 two (2) requests from IO1 Peralta for the examination of the following: eleven (11) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance and four (4) urine samples. The urine samples were taken from Liquete, Piano, Monzon, and Florendo, with all the specimen duly marked. She testified that after she conducted screening and confirmatory tests on the subject specimen, the tests yielded positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride. After the laboratory examination, the subject specimen were turned over to Nanay, a custodian of PDEA. 10
IO1 Peralta stated that she is a member of PDEA. She testified that on October 2, 2013, while at the PDEA safehouse in Ilocos Sur, their regular confidential agent personally reported to her the drug activities of Liquete who was allegedly selling shabu in a vacant house owned by Florendo at Encarnacion Street, Barangay V, Vigan City. Upon verification, she found out that Liquete's name was not included in the PDEA order-of-battle list. She testified, however, that other law enforcement units confirmed that Liquete was selling illegal drugs. Thereafter, they formed a buy-bust operation team composed of agents Elaine Grace Ordoño (Ordoño), Francis Lomas-e, Dexter Regaspi, IO1 Oandasan, and IO1 Fernandez, with IO1 Peralta being designated as the poseur-buyer. IO1 Peralta prepared the buy-bust money consisting of five (5) pieces of genuine P1,000.00 bills. She further testified that the operation was coordinated with the PDEA Regional Office, and with a police officer of the Vigan City Police Station. While conducting surveillance an hour before the buy-bust operation, they spotted a man outside the house identified by their informant as Florendo. At that point, the informant called Liquete through cellular phone and talked to him with loud speaker on, allowing the team to hear the conversation. IO1 Peralta testified that Liquete uttered to the informant the words "puntahan niyo na lang ako sa dati." 11 DETACa
IO1 Peralta further testified that on or about 3:30 in the afternoon of the same date, IO1 Fernandez and other members of the team went to the meeting place, while she and IO1 Oandasan reached the place five (5) minutes later. The informant texted Liquete that they were already at the gate of the house. After five (5) minutes, Monzon appeared and invited them in. Once inside, they were brought to a large room in the second floor of the house where the informant introduced to her Liquete, Florendo, and Piano. She stated that she saw Liquete take out a black eyeglass case from his right front pocket and took out from the said case one (1) plastic sachet, which he gave to her in exchange for the marked bills amounting to P5,000.00. She further testified that she saw Piano and Florendo sniffing shabu while this was happening. Other drug paraphernalia were also allegedly scattered inside the room. She stated that Florendo invited them to sniff shabu, but they just nodded their heads in response. At that point, Liquete allegedly pocketed the marked bills, while IO1 Peralta inserted the plastic sachet in her bag. Thereafter, she gave the pre-arranged signal by making a call to IO1 Fernandez using her cellular phone concealed in her bag. Her back-up arrived a few minutes later and identified themselves as PDEA agents. 12
IO1 Peralta stated that Liquete tried to resist but was subdued by IO1 Fernandez. Thereafter, a body search was conducted on Liquete after Fernandez informed him of his Miranda rights. IO1 Peralta testified that she was able to recover from Liquete a black eyeglass case containing heat-sealed plastic sachets with crystalline substance and the marked bills. She allegedly marked the seized items with her initials while Ordoño took photographs. She declared that she inventoried the confiscated items in the presence of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and media representatives, and a barangay official. After that, Liquete, along with Florendo, Piano, and Monzon were brought to the Vigan City Police Station where she prepared the requests for drug testing and the laboratory examination of the seized items. She testified that all four (4) of the men tested positive for the use of shabu, and that the seized items also tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride. 13
IO1 Oandasan testified that on October 2, 2013, at about 11:00 in the morning, a confidential informant reported to IO1 Peralta that Liquete was selling illegal drugs in a house at Encarnacion Street, Barangay V, Vigan City. He stated that he personally knew the informant who usually accompanied them during their anti-drug operations. He further stated that there were also reports from residents of Encarnacion Street that the said house was being used as a drug den. He claimed that he was able to hear the phone conversation between the informant and Liquete as the loud speaker was turned on during their call. IO1 Oandasan narrated that he was with the buy-bust team that went to the said house in Vigan City, an abandoned two-storey home, which, as he was told by the informant, was owned by the family of Florendo. They were met by Monzon outside the gate of the house, led to a well-maintained room on the second floor, and were introduced to Liquete as buyers. He stated that he saw an improvised tooter being passed around the room as Liquete, Florendo, Piano, and Monzon took turns sniffing the shabu. 14
IO1 Oandasan stated that at that point, he saw Liquete take out one (1) plastic sachet of white crystalline substance from a black eyeglass case, which Liquete gave to IO1 Peralta. IO1 Peralta then made the pre-arranged signal after exchanging the bills for the sachet, and the rest of the team entered to arrest Liquete and his companions. He stated that he was only two (2) meters away from IO1 Peralta when the exchange took place. 15
IO1 Fernandez testified that he was at the PDEA safehouse when the confidential informant gave IO1 Peralta the information that Liquete was selling illegal drugs at the house of Florendo. Immediately thereafter, a buy-bust team was organized which he was made part of. IO1 Fernandez also stated that their team leader, Agent Daniel Bacate, called the PDEA Regional Office to coordinate the buy-bust operation. He further testified that while planning the operation, it was agreed upon by the team members that IO1 Peralta would call him using her cellular phone once the sale had been consummated. This would serve as the signal for the PDEA back-up team to enter the place and arrest the suspects. 16 aDSIHc
IO1 Fernandez testified that he was part of the advance team that arrived at the house of Florendo in a van, and that other team members positioned themselves within the vicinity. As soon as he saw IO1 Peralta, IO1 Oandasan, and the informant enter the house, he alighted from the van and inquired from the residents of the neighbouring houses as to the ownership of the said house. He found out that the house was owned by the family of Florendo. Upon receiving the pre-arranged signal from IO1 Peralta, IO1 Fernandez and the rest of the team members entered the house. He stated that once he entered the room in the second floor, he saw Liquete, Monzon, Piano and Florendo already on the floor. He informed them of their Miranda rights and that they were being arrested for violating R.A. No. 9165. He stated that he was prompted to handcuff Liquete who was resisting the body search being conducted by IO1 Peralta. He also stated that he was able to witness the inventory and the marking of the items seized. 17
Evidence for the Defense
Liquete testified that on October 2, 2013, at around 3:30 in the afternoon, he was at a house owned by the Florendo family. He was waiting to show the house to his brother who was allegedly a prospective buyer of the said property. He stated that while he was talking to Florendo, PDEA officers suddenly appeared and pointed their guns at them while ordering them to drop to the floor. He named the officers as IO1 Peralta and IO1 Oandasan. He stated that prior to those events, he did not know any of the PDEA agents who arrested him. According to Liquete, Monzon and Piano were also in the room at that time. Liquete stated that IO1 Peralta inserted a black case inside his pocket. Marking and inventory were subsequently conducted, but Liquete refused to sign the Certificate of Inventory as the black case and its contents did not belong to him. 18
Liquete testified that the confiscated items were marked prior to the arrival of the media representative and barangay officials, and that the PDEA officers only brought out the contents of the black case when the barangay officials arrived. Thereafter, they were brought to the Vigan City Police Station then transferred to the PDEA Regional Office in San Fernando City for drug testing. It was there, Liquete claims, that they were tortured by agents who were not part of the team that apprehended them. He stated that they were told to provide urine samples for drug testing, which he freely gave. He also testified that he never received a call or text from a person allegedly informing him that someone was interested to buy shabu from him, and that his request to be brought to a hospital was not granted after he suffered injuries due to the alleged torture done to him. 19
Rebuttal and sur-rebuttal
The prosecution presented Dr. Evelyn Del Castillo (Dr. Del Castillo) and IO1 Peralta as rebuttal witnesses.
Dr. Del Castillo testified that she, a doctor at the City Health Office of Vigan City, conducted a physical examination on Liquete on October 2, 2013. She stated that she performed an external examination on Liquete and found no internal wounds, bruises, hematoma, or abrasions. 20
IO1 Peralta reiterated that the black eyeglass case and its contents were in the possession of Liquete when she bought one (1) sachet of shabu as poseur-buyer of the buy bust team. She also testified that no torture could have taken place because Liquete and his companions were immediately placed inside a detention cell after they were turned over to the prison guards on duty at the PDEA Regional Office. She finally stated that no interrogation took place while Liquete was detained therein. 21
In his sur-rebuttal testimony, Liquete repeated that it was IO1 Peralta who inserted the black eyeglass case inside his pocket while he was handcuffed. He also testified that IO1 Peralta stepped on him while he was on the ground, and that he was afraid to file charges against the PDEA officers. He raised the defense that he was merely framed because the agents who wanted to file a case against him found nothing in the house of Florendo. He stated that they were brought to the City Health Office of Vigan before they were tortured. 22
RTC Ruling
The RTC rendered its Decision in the criminal cases filed against Liquete, convicting him for illegal sale, illegal possession, and use of dangerous drugs:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing disquisitions, the Court finds the accused ROMEO LIQUETE y ANG, alias "MENGA"
In Crim. Case No. 7270-V-2013
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged in the Information, and is hereby sentenced to suffer LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00). ETHIDa
In Crim. Case No. 7277-V-2013
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged in the Information, and is hereby sentenced to suffer LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).
In Crim. Case No. 7283-V-2013
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged in the Information, and is hereby sentenced to six months rehabilitation in any public rehabilitation center.
The 1.7701 grams and 12.4784 grams of shabu are hereby forfeited in favor of the Government. The PDEA Ilocos Sur Office is hereby directed to receive the same from the OIC-Branch Clerk of Court of this Court within fifteen (15) days from receipt of this Decision.
The OIC-Branch Clerk of Court is directed to issue the MITTIMUS.
Furnishing copy of this Decision to the Provincial Offices of the PNP and PDEA.
COSTS DE OFFICIO.
SO ORDERED. 23
The RTC upheld the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties by the officers as it was not shown that there was any ill-motive to falsely testify against the accused and the accused himself testified that he never had any personal encounter with the officers prior to the events. The trial court further ruled that all the elements for the crimes charged against Liquete were found present, and the consonant testimonies of the PDEA agents and the crime laboratory officers were bolstered by documentary and object evidence. The RTC also ruled that Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 on the Chain of Custody requirements had been complied with as the accountability for each of the transfer of the seized drugs have been indubitably proven and corroborated by documentary evidence. Finally, the RTC declared that Liquete gave no valid justification for his unsubstantiated denial, and that the story of the accused appears to be a concoction when weighed against the tell-tale version and the consistent, consonant, and positive affirmations of the prosecution witnesses. 24
Aggrieved, Liquete appealed the decision to the CA.
CA Ruling
The CA issued its Decision denying Liquete's appeal and affirming his conviction with modification:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The assailed Joint-Decision dated April 15, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Vigan City, Ilocos Sur in Criminal Case Nos. 7276-V-2013, 7277-V-2013, and 7283-V-2013 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the penalty of six (6) months rehabilitation is DELETED. The rest of the Joint-Decision STANDS.
SO ORDERED. 25
The CA held that Liquete's bare denial failed to prevail against the positive identification and categorical testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The CA, however, deleted the penalty of six (6) months rehabilitation as it ruled that the penalty for use of dangerous drugs in Section 15 of R.A. No. 9165 should be absorbed by the heavier penalty imposed under Section 11. 26
Aggrieved once more, Liquete appealed the CA decision. The CA gave due course to Liquete's appeal in its Resolution 27 dated October 26, 2017.
This Court, in its Resolution 28 dated March 5, 2018, ordered the parties to file their respective supplemental briefs, if any. The State, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a manifestation adopting the appellee's brief filed before the CA. 29 Accused Liquete, through his counsel, filed his own manifestation adopting the appellant's brief filed before the CA. 30 cSEDTC
Issue
Whether or not the CA committed any reversible error when it affirmed with modification Liquete's conviction for violations of R.A. No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Ruling of the Court
The appeal is without merit.
Liquete was charged of and convicted with violations of Sections 5, 11, and 15 of R.A. No. 9165.
To successfully prosecute the offense of Sale of Illegal Drugs under Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be proven: (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. 31 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. 32 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. 33 As noted by both the RTC and the CA, the testimony of the poseur-buyer IO1 Peralta, corroborated by the testimonies of IO1 Oandasan and IO1 Fernandez convincingly established the elements of the crime. The witnesses were consistent in their individual accounts as to how they received the report from their confidential informant regarding Liquete's alleged activities. It was shown that Liquete handed over shabu to IO1 Peralta, who in turn, gave five (5) marked P1,000.00 bills to Liquete as payment. The illegal sale of shabu was clearly consummated. The confiscated items were also presented during trial to prove the corpus delicti of the crime. Further, it was not proven that the PDEA officers were prompted by ill motives in conducting the operation. Hence, there was no color of illegality in the conduct of the operation. AIDSTE
On the other hand, in prosecuting a case for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following elements must concur: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified as a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. 34 In this case, IO1 Peralta and IO1 Oandasan both testified that during the buy-bust operation, they personally saw Liquete take out a sachet of shabu from a black eyeglass case which he freely took out from his pocket, and reinserted such black eyeglass case into his pocket upon consummation of the sale. The officers were consistent in their testimonies that this eyeglass case was later recovered by IO1 Peralta when she searched him after the arrest was made. No evidence was shown by the defense to prove that Liquete was authorized by law to possess the shabu.
We also agree with the findings of the RTC and the CA in ruling that the Chain of Custody requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 were complied with. The testimonies of the witnesses and the documentary evidence submitted show that the marking and inventory of the seized items were made immediately after, and at the place of the warrantless arrest. The inventory and photographing of the seized items were witnessed by Punong Barangay Ramon Dumbrique, DOJ representative Glen Tulas, and DWRS reporter Roger Paet. The same witnesses also affixed their signatures on the Certificate of Inventory 35 submitted by the prosecution. Forensic Chemist Mamaradlo and PDEA Custodian Nanay were both presented to testify on the results of the examination of the sachets of shabu recovered from Liquete, and to prove the maintenance of the integrity of such items. All the pieces of evidence adequately satisfy the chain of custody requirements laid down by the Court in Mallillin v. People: 36 (1) the testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence; and (2) that the witnesses should 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 item.
Liquete advanced the following arguments to show that circumstances were present which should be fatal to the prosecution's case: (1) lack of prior surveillance; and, (2) IO1 Peralta's act of initially placing the sachet of shabu sold to her inside her shoulder bag.
First, this Court has repeatedly ruled that the absence of a prior surveillance or test-buy does not affect the legality of a buy-bust operation, especially when the buy-bust team members were accompanied to the scene by their informant. 37Second, as aptly pointed out by the CA, IO1 Peralta was still acting as a poseur-buyer when she initially inserted the purchased sachet of shabu in her bag. This was necessary in order to avoid arousing suspicion, maintain the charade, and give her an excuse to reach for her cellular phone to execute the pre-arranged signal. As further pointed out by the CA, Liquete and his three (3) companions still outnumbered the buy-bust team members at that point. To insist that the sachet be marked right after the sale was consummated, i.e., immediately after it was handed to IO1 Peralta, would not only compromise the safety of the agents, but also jeopardize the success of the operation itself. What is important is that immediately after the warrantless arrest was made, marking of the seized items was there and then performed, and the three (3) insulating witnesses were present at the place of the warrantless arrest to observe the inventory and photography, in accordance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.
Finally, Section 15 of R.A. No. 9165 penalizes the use of dangerous drugs. Section 15 reads:
Section 15. Use of Dangerous Drugs. — A person apprehended or arrested, who is found to be positive for use of any dangerous drug, after a confirmatory test, shall be imposed a penalty of a minimum of six (6) months rehabilitation in a government center for the first offense, subject to the provisions of Article VIII of this Act. It apprehended using any dangerous drug for the second time, he/she shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years and a fine ranging from Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00): Provided, That this Section shall not be applicable where the person tested is also found to have in his/her possession such quantity of any dangerous drug provided for under Section 11 of this Act, in which case the provisions stated therein shall apply. acEHCD
A reading of the above section reveals that in order to successfully prosecute an accused for use of dangerous drugs, the following must be present: 1) a person is apprehended or arrested; 2) the said person was subjected to a drug test; and 3) the person tested positive for use of any dangerous drug after a confirmatory test. Moreover, Section 15 contains a proviso making such Section inapplicable in case an accused is also charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
This Court has already ruled that an accused may not be charged separately for a violation of Section 11 on illegal possession of dangerous drugs, and Section 15 on use of dangerous drugs since the law states that "the provisions of Section 11 shall apply." Thus, illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11 absorbs the use of dangerous drugs under Section 15. 38 For this reason, the Court dismisses Criminal Case No. 7283-V-2013 against Liquete on use of dangerous drugs as the same is absorbed by Section 11.
As regards Liquete's assertion that he was tortured, the CA correctly recognized that Liquete did not present convincing proof to substantiate his claim. The other accused jointly tried with Liquete in the RTC did not even corroborate his claim that they were tortured.
Liquete also provided the alibi that he was merely at Florendo's house to show the house to his brother, an alleged prospective buyer. His unwillingness, however, to present his brother before the court to corroborate this claim only casts great doubt upon his alibi.
In fine, considering the pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution, the denial of the accused fails. Courts generally view the defense of denial with disfavor due to the facility with which an accused can concoct it to suit his or her defense. As evidence that is both negative and self-serving, this defense cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who testify clearly, providing thereby positive evidence on the various aspects of the crime committed. 39 Bare denials cannot prevail over the prosecution witnesses' positive identification of the accused-appellant as the person who was in possession of the shabu, who delivered it to the poseur-buyer, and who received payment for it. 40
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated August 30, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08362 affirming with modification the Decision dated April 15, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court, First Judicial Region, Branch 20, Vigan City, Ilocos Sur, in Criminal Case Nos. 7276-V-2013 and 7277-V-2013, insofar as it affirms the conviction of Romeo Liquete y Ang for violations of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 is hereby AFFIRMED. Criminal Case No. 7283-V-2013 is hereby DISMISSED, as the charge therein is absorbed under Criminal Case No. 7277-V-2013.
SO ORDERED." (Hernando, J, no part,Rosario, J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated October 13, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 2-22; penned by Acting Presiding Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando, with Associate Justices Mario V. Lopez and Ramon Paul H. Hernando (now Members of this Court), concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 75-100; penned by Judge Marita Bernales Balloguing.
3. Id. at 75-76.
4. Rollo, p. 4.
5. Id. at 5.
6. Id.
7. Id. at 5-9.
8. Id. at 9.
9. Id. at 5.
10. Id. at 5-6.
11. Id. at 6.
12. Id. at 6-7.
13. Id. at 7.
14. Id. at 7-8.
15. Id. at 8.
16. Id.
17. Id. at 8-9.
18. Id. at 9.
19. Id.
20. Id. at 10.
21. Id.
22. Id.
23. CA rollo, pp. 99-100.
24. Id. at 95-99.
25. Rollo, p. 21.
26. Id. at 20-21.
27. Id. at 26.
28. Id. at 28-29.
29. Id. at 30-33.
30. Id. at 34-38.
31. People v. Magalong, G.R. No. 231838, March 4, 2019, citing People v. Sic-Open, 795 Phil. 859, 869-870 (2016); People v. Eda, 793 Phil. 885, 896 (2016); People v. Amaro, 786 Phil. 139, 147 (2016); and People v. Ros, 758 Phil. 142, 159 (2015).
32. People v. Baluyot, G.R. No. 243390, October 5, 2020, citing People v. Addin, G.R. No. 223682, October 9, 2019.
33. People v. Magalong, supra note 31, citing People v. Eda, supra note 31, at 897; People v. Amaro, supra note 31, at 47; and People v. Ros, supra note 31.
34. People v. Montevirgen, 723 Phil. 534, 542 (2013).
35. Rollo, p. 18, citing Records (for Criminal Case No. 7276-V-2013), p. 36.
36. 576 Phil. 576, 587 (2008).
37. See People v. Dumangay, 587 Phil. 730, 739 (2008); and People v. Nicolas, 544 Phil. 123, 134 (2007).
38. See People v. Galicia, 826 Phil. 119, 136 (2018).
39. People v. Alcala, 739 Phil. 189, 202 (2014).
40. People v. Razul, 441 Phil. 62, 93-94 (2002), citing People v. Chua, 416 Phil. 33, 55 (2001).