SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 248843. February 14, 2022]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ELMO MABAQUIAO, JR. y PAHILA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated14 February 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 248843 (People of the Philippines v. Elmo Mabaquiao, Jr. y Pahila). — This is an appeal 1 from the June 18, 2019 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02865 affirming the Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Jordan, Guimaras, Branch 65. The RTC found accused-appellant Elmo Mabaquiao, Jr. y Pahila (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 4 or the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
The Factual Antecedents:
The facts, as lifted from the CA Decision and the records, are as follows:
Two Informations 5 both dated February 9, 2015 were filed against accused-appellant for violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165. The accusatory portion of the Information for violation of Section 5 reads:
That on or about the 18th day of November 2014, in the Municipality of Buenavista, Province of Guimaras, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law to sell any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell, deliver and give away to another, 0.0194 gram of white crystalline substance contained in one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, which was found positive to the test for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, also known as "shabu," in violation of the afore-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
Meanwhile, the Information for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 alleges:
That on or about the 18th day of November 2014, in the Municipality of Buenavista, Province of Guimaras, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully and knowingly possess and have in his custody four (4) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with the following description and recorded weights: CAIHTE
1.) HGD-B1 (EM) = 0.0127 gram
2.) HGD-B2 (EM-1) = 0.0355 gram
3.) HGD-B3 (EM-2) = 0.0217 gram
4.) HGD-B4 (EM-3) = 0.0183 gram
having a total weight of 0.0882 gram of white crystalline substance, which were found positive to the tests for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, also known as "shabu," a dangerous drug, in violation of the afore-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 7
Version of the Prosecution:
The prosecution presented the testimonies of the following witnesses: Department of Justice (DOJ) representative Agnes Gamuyao (Gamuyao), Police Senior Inspector Hernand Donado (PS/Insp. Donado), Police Officer 2 Christian John Tan 8 (PO2 Tan), PO2 Arnel Failanga (PO2 Failanga), PO3 Jay Padilla (PO3 Padilla), and PO3 Rodel Pacurib.
The prosecution alleged that sometime in July 2014, the Buenavista Municipal Police Station received information that accused-appellant was involved in the selling of illegal drugs. Pursuant to this, the Chief of Police of said police station ordered the conduct of a buy-bust operation against the accused-appellant. The buy-bust team was composed of the following officers: PS/Insp. Stephen Somosot (PS/Insp. Somosot), PS/Insp. Ethan Estaya (PS/Insp. Estaya), Senior Police Officer 3 Jose Nelio Sabran (SPO3 Sabran), PO2 Tan, PO2 Ediben Jacildo, PO2 Jesus Galleron (PO2 Galleron), and PO3 Efraim Octaviano. PO2 Tan was designated as the poseur-buyer while SPO3 Sabran was assigned as back-up. The other members of the team were assigned as perimeter security. 9
On November 18, 2014, the team went to the target area in Brgy. Salvacion, Buenavista, Guimaras, to conduct the operation. Meanwhile, the accused-appellant who arrived at the area together with the confidential informant (CI) at around 3:00 p.m., approached PO2 Tan who was standing at the roadside across the house of Brgy. Captain Edgar Gallo (Gallo). The CI then introduced PO2 Tan to the accused-appellant as his friend who wanted to buy shabu. Accused-appellant asked PO2 Tan how much he wanted to buy, to which the latter replied P500.00 worth. Thereafter, PO2 Tan handed to the accused-appellant the buy-bust money consisting of five pieces of P100 bills. One of the five bills, a P100 bill bearing serial number HT861872 was subscribed by PO2 Failanga before Provincial Prosecutor Luzermindo Calmorin. Afterwards, the accused-appellant gave PO2 Tan a sachet containing a white crystalline substance. PO2 Tan held the sachet in his left hand, and then proceeded to perform the pre-arranged signal by scratching his head, informing his back-up that the sale has been consummated. 10
PO2 Tan then arrested the accused-appellant. Together with SPO3 Sabran, they introduced themselves as police officers. Accused-appellant tried to flee but PO2 Tan held his hand. Upon arrest, SPO3 Sabran frisked the accused-appellant and recovered from the latter's possession four more sachets, a disposable lighter, a cigarette pack, and the buy-bust money. 11
The team conducted an inventory of the recovered items at the place of the arrest. Gamuyao and Gallo acted as witnesses. PO3 Padilla took photographs, while PO2 Tan marked the seized items. The item bought from accused-appellant was marked as "BB-EM," and the four other sachets marked as "EM", "EM-1", "EM-2", and "EM-3". The cigarette pack was marked as "EM-4", and the disposable lighter was marked as "EM-5". 12
After the inventory, the team headed back to the Buenavista Municipal Police Station to record the incident and prepare the request for laboratory examination of the seized items. PO2 Tan kept all the seized items in his custody. From the police station, PO2 Tan delivered the sachets to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory for chemical testing and was received by PS/Insp. Donado. After examination, it was revealed that the contents of all five plastic sachets yielded a positive result for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, also known as "shabu."13
Version of the Defense:
Accused-appellant denied the accusations against him. He stated that on November 18, 2014, at around 3:45 p.m., he was at the machine shop of a certain Bochoy Porras (Bochoy) when suddenly, police officers Galleron and PS/Insp. Estaya arrived. Accused-appellant alleged that Galleron dragged him towards the side of Bochoy's house and asked him if he had shabu, which he denied by saying he was not into it. However, Estaya ordered that the accused-appellant be placed in handcuffs, brought him in front of Bochoy's house and frisked him. They recovered from him cash in the amount of P312.00. 14
Accused-appellant denied selling shabu to PO2 Tan and insisted that no buy-bust took place prior to his arrest. 15
Meanwhile, defense witness Ludy Barra stated that he saw accused-appellant being held by two persons in front of Bochoy's machine shop. He claimed that he did not see the alleged sale of shabu. 16
Ruling of the Regional Trial
In the Decision 17 dated November 24, 2017, the accused-appellant was found guilty by the RTC of violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, but was acquitted of the charge of violating Section 11. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the court finds accused Elmo Mabaquiao, Jr. y Pahila GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 5 of R.A. 9165 in Criminal Case No. 15-2023. He is sentenced to LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a FINE of P500,000.00. The accused who is detained shall be credited in the service of his sentenced. DETACa
Accused Elmo Mabaquiao, Jr. y Pahila is ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. 15-2024.
The items recovered in relation to this case are FORFEITED in favor of the government to be DESTROYED in accordance with the law.
SO ORDERED.18
The RTC relied mainly on the testimony of PO2 Tan, which it found to be sufficient in establishing that a valid buy-bust operation was conducted that led to the arrest of the accused-appellant. However, as regards the Section 11 charge, the RTC found the prosecution's failure to present as witness SPO3 Sabran, the police officer who allegedly recovered the subject items, fatal to its cause. Thus, the RTC concluded that this created a "missing link" in the chain of custody and consequently, the failure to establish the existence of the corpus delicti which warrants an acquittal for the accused-appellant. 19
Aggrieved by his conviction, accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal 20 dated January 16, 2018.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
In its June 18, 2019 Decision, 21 the CA denied the accused-appellant's appeal and affirmed the RTC Decision.
The CA agreed with the conclusion of the RTC as to the credibility and truthfulness of PO2 Tan's testimony. It held that "the application of the four-link test in the chain of custody of the subject dangerous drug would prove that the police officers involved in this case executed a near perfect compliance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165." 22
The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED. The Decision November 24, 2017 rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Sixth Judicial Region, Branch 65, Jordan, Guimaras in Criminal Case No. 15-2023 (for Violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. 9165) is AFFIRMED in its entirety.
SO ORDERED.23
Undeterred, accused-appellant elevated the case to this Court by filing a Notice of Appeal 24 dated July 4, 2019.
Issue
The sole issue to be resolved is whether the accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165.
In his brief, 25 accused-appellant principally contests the credibility of PO2 Tan's testimony. He claims that it is incredible, uncorroborated, and marred with inconsistencies. Further, the accused-appellant asserts that there was failure on the part of the prosecution to establish compliance with the rule on chain of custody which should warrant his acquittal.
Our Ruling
The appeal lacks merit.
In People v. Buniag, 26 the Court reiterated the following principle:
[I]t is important for the Court to point out that for a successful prosecution of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under RA 9165, x x x the following elements must be proven: (1) the transaction or sale took place; (2) the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) the buyer and the seller were identified.
In cases involving dangerous drugs, the confiscated drug constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction. x x x 27
The Court holds that the foregoing elements have been fully established.
A careful review of the PO2 Tan's testimony will reveal that the first and third elements are present:
Q: When was the first time you came to know the name of Elmo Mabaquiao?
A: When our chief of police informed me of that certain Elmo Mabaquiao is selling drug and we conducted surveillance, Sir.
Q: You only learned about this fact through an information?
A: It was received by our chief of police, Sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Now, when you were told about this information about the activity of Elmo Mabaquiao by your Chief of Police, what was the instruction given to you, if any?
A: To verify the veracity of the said information and to plan the buy-bust operation, Sir.
Q: And did you comply to the instruction of your chief of police?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: And what was the result of the validation?
A: Our validation resulted that the subject is positively selling drugs, Sir.
Q: And because you were able to confirm the involvement of Elmo Mabaquiao was selling illegal drug activity in Buenavista, what happened next?
A: Our Chief of police wanted to conduct a buy-bust operation to verify the information, Sir.
Q: Who were the members of the buy-bust team?
A: P/Sr. Inspector Stephen Somosot, then the PADSOTG members P/Sr. Insp. Ethan Estaya, SPO3 Nelio Sabran, PO2 Ediben Jacildo, PO3 Jesus Galleron and PO3 Efraim Octaviano.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: What was your tasked (sic) in that buy-bust operation?
A: I was tasked to act as poseur-buyer, Sir.
Q: How about Sabran?
A: He was tasked to be my back-up, Sir. aDSIHc
xxx xxx xxx
Q: In what particular place did you wait for the subject to come?
A: In Barangay Salvacion, Sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: The place of the transaction where was that particular location in Barangay Salvacion?
A: It was located in front of the house of the barangay captain, Sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Did the subject arrive?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: What time more or less?
A: About 3:00 o'clock p.m., Sir.
Q: Of November 18, 2014?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: When Elmo Mabaquiao arrived, was he alone or with a companion?
A: He was with our confidential asset, Sir.
Q: You were inside the car according to you?
A: I was already there at that place, Sir.
Q: Were you the one who approached the subject?
A: No Sir. They were the one who approached us and then our confidential asset introduced me to the subject, Sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Now, when you were there already and with your confidential asset and the subject and you said the confidential asset introduced you to the subject?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: Tell us how you were introduced by your confidential asset to the subject?
A: Our confidential asset introduced me as his friend and the asset said that I was his friend and am going to buy item (sic), Sir.
Q: Was the amount mentioned?
A: The subject asked me if how much I am going to buy, Sir.
Q: And what was your reply?
A: I said, "Lima Pre."
Q: After you replied "lima pre," what happened next?
A: He immediately told me to wait and then I handed to him the money and then after that he handed to me the item, Sir.
Q: So you handed to him the 500 pesos and he got it?
A: Yes, Sir and after that he handed to me the one (1) sachet of shabu, Sir.
Q: Could you describe that one (1) sachet of shabu you mentioned?
A: One (1) sachet containing white crystalline substance, Sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Who effected the arrest?
A: Me, Sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Could you please look around and point to us the person of Elmo Mabaquiao whom you arrested after handing to you the plastic sachet containing suspected shabu for P500.00?
A: (Witness is pointing to a person inside the courtroom when called and (sic) asked of his name answered, Elmo Mabaquiao). 28 (Emphases supplied)
Clear from the foregoing are the following facts: first, that PO2 Tan paid a sum of money and in exchange, received a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance which is later verified to be shabu, a dangerous drug; and second, that the person who received the sum of money and gave the plastic sachet to PO2 Tan was the accused-appellant. In the Court's view, this proves that a sale took place, and the respective identities of the buyer and the seller. At this juncture, we quote with approval the pronouncement of the CA:
PO3 Tan, a member of the team that conducted the buy-bust operation, an eyewitness to the sale of illegal drug and the one assigned to act as poseur-buyer, testified in a direct, positive, categorical and straightforward manner, as to how they conducted their buy-bust operation, as well as the circumstances which led to the arrest of the appellant. 29
We also agree with the observation of the CA as to the alleged inconsistencies in PO2 Tan's testimony: ETHIDa
Accused-appellant argues that the testimony of prosecution witness PO3 Tan, due to its inconsistencies, should have been rejected by the trial court. However, we find the purported inconsistencies between the sworn affidavit of PO3 Tan and his open court declaration do not diminish the weight of his testimony. The presence of the confidential asset or that the latter immediately left while the sale transaction was ongoing is not material in establishing the elements of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. 30
Coming now to the second element, the accused-appellant contends that there are "glaring gaps in the chain of custody." 31
The chain of custody rule in drugs cases is explained in People v. Calates, 32 thus:
The proper handling of the confiscated drug is paramount in order to ensure the chain of custody, a process essential to preserving the integrity of the evidence of the corpus delicti. In this connection, chain of custody refers to the duly recorded authorized movement and custody of seized drugs, controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment, from the time of seizure or confiscation to the time of receipt in the forensic laboratory, to the safekeeping until presentation in court as evidence and for the purpose of destruction. The documentation of the movement and custody of the seized items should include the identity and signature of the person or persons who held temporary custody thereof, the date and time when such transfer or custody was made in the course of safekeeping until presented in court as evidence, and the eventual disposition. There is no denying that the safeguards of marking, inventory and picture-taking are all vital to establish that the substance confiscated from the accused was the very same one delivered to and presented as evidence in court. 33
Moreover, in People v. Omamos, 34 citing People v. Hementiza, 35 the Court reiterated the four links in the chain of custody that must be proved:
First, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the dangerous drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer;
Second, the turnover of the dangerous drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer;
Third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the dangerous drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and
Fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked dangerous drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. 36
The accused-appellant maintains that the chain of custody was not established, specifically the second link, in that there was failure to transfer the seized drugs from the apprehending officer to the investigating officer. He claims:
In People vs. Dahil, citing People vs. Remigio, G.R. No. 189277, December 5, 2012, the Supreme Court noted the failure of the police officers to establish the chain of custody as the apprehending officer did not transfer the seized items to the investigating officer. The apprehending officer kept the alleged shabu from the time of confiscation until the time he transferred them to the forensic chemist. The deviation from the links in the chain of custody led to the acquittal of the accused in the said case.
It bears to note that in this case, there was no mentioned (sic) as to who is the investigating officer. As can be seen from the records of the case, if was PO3 Tan the poseur-buyer and the apprehending officer who took possession of the seized items. It was likewise PO3 Tan who turned the seized substance over to the forensic laboratory for testing. Thus, it can be said that PO3 Tan kept the alleged shabu from the time of confiscation until the time he transferred them to the forensic chemist, creating deviations from the links in the chain of custody as in the case of People vs. Dahil. 37
The Court disagrees with the accused-appellant's arguments.
Contrary to accused-appellant's position, the Court in People v. Dahil(Dahil)38 did not acquit the accused therein solely because of the prosecution's failure to prove the second link in the chain of custody. A closer look at Dahil is enlightening:
First, the inventory of the property was not immediately conducted after the seizure and confiscation as it was only done at the police station. Notably, Article II, Section 21 (a) of the IRR allows the inventory to be done at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending team whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures. In this case, however, the prosecution did not even claim that the PDEA Office Region 3 was the nearest office from the TB Pavilion where the drugs were seized. The prosecution also failed to give sufficient justification for the delayed conduct of the inventory. x x x
xxx xxx xxx
Second, there is doubt as to the identity of the person who prepared the Inventory of Property Seized. According to the CA decision, it was Sergeantdela Cruz who prepared the said document. PO2 Cruz on the other hand, testified that it was their investigator who prepared the document while SPO1 Licu's testimony was that a certain SPO4 Jamisolamin was their investigator.
Third, there were conflicting claims on whether the seized items were photographed in the presence of the accused or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official. x x x
xxx xxx xxx
In view of all the foregoing, the Court can only conclude that, indeed, there was no compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 because of the inadequate physical inventory and the lack of photography of the marijuana allegedly confiscated from Dahil and Castro. No explanation was offered for the non-observance of the rule. The prosecution cannot apply the saving mechanism of Section 21 of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 because it miserably failed to prove that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. The four links required to establish the proper chain of custody were breached with irregularity and lapses. AIDSTE
xxx xxx xxx
Given the procedural lapses, serious uncertainty hangs over the identify of the seized marijuana that the prosecution presented as evidence before the Court. In effect, the prosecution failed to fully prove the elements of the crime charged, creating a reasonable doubt on the criminal liability of the accused. 39 (Emphases supplied)
As can be seen from the quoted portions of Dahil, the very identity of the seized drugs was at issue. Contrary to the accused-appellant's claim, there were far more significant problems with regard to the chain of custody in Dahil than simply the failure to transfer the seized drug from the apprehending officer to the investigating officer. Obviously, the accused-appellant omitted all these factors in order to fit his narrative. The Court cannot countenance this kind of argumentation which is not only misleading, but is already borderline misrepresentation.
In the present case, the facts are starkly different. The integrity of the seized drugs is not in issue and was in fact, fully established. The CA correctly held:
The records show that PO3 Tan never lost possession and control of the seized shabu from the time it was recovered from the appellant during the buy-bust operation and when he marked the same. PO3 Tan maintained possession when the sachets were brought to the crime laboratory for laboratory examination and turnover to the forensic chemist PS/Insp. Hernand Donado. 40
And while compliance with the chain of custody requirement was not perfect, we hold that the same is nonetheless sufficient. Section 2, par. (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 provides:
(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 supplied)
As correctly held by the CA, the rationale behind the provision is the reality that a perfect compliance with the chain of custody rule is extremely difficult, if not impossible. Thus, certain leeway is allowed to law enforcement authorities, lest all drug cases be dismissed on the basis of an unreasonably difficult requirement of the law. SDAaTC
To reiterate, the seized drugs which were later verified to be shabu were properly marked. Records also show that the items previously marked are the same ones submitted to the RTC as evidence. In other words, the intent behind the chain of custody requirement — to make sure that the very items seized from the suspect are the same ones submitted to the court, no more no less — is satisfied. As summarized by the CA:
In this case, the application of the four-link test in the chain of custody of the subject dangerous drug would prove that the police officers involved in this case executed a near perfect compliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165, to wit:
1. When the sale of drugs from accused-appellant to PO3 Tan was consummated, the latter never let go of the drug specimen and conducted the inventory of the drugs and other seized items as well as photographed the same right there at the scene of the crime, duly witnessed by Barangay Captain Edgar Gallo and DOJ representative Agnes Gumayao;
2. The drugs subject of the buy bust was not turned over to the investigating officer, but remained in the custody of PO3 Tan until the same was turned over to PS/Insp. Donado at the PNP Crime Laboratory. This portion of the link shows a slight deviation from Section 21, but We rule the same to be non-fatal to the cause of the prosecution as it shows no break in the link nor raises questions into the integrity of the seized drugs as it had in fact stayed in the custody of just one police officer and never change hands until its eventual turn over to the crime laboratory;
3. The drug specimen was personally received by the forensic chemist PS/Insp. Donado himself from PO3 Tan on November 18, 2014 at 6 in the evening and immediately conducted laboratory examination thereon within two hours from receipt at 8 in the evening of even date;
4. PS/Insp. Donado himself turned over the drug specimen to the trial court and the trial prosecutor for pre-marking of evidence/exhibits on June 11, 2015. 41
In fine, the Court affirms the conviction of the accused-appellant for violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The June 18, 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02865 finding accused-appellant Elmo Mabaquiao Jr. y Pahila guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 or the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 21-23.
2. CA rollo, pp. 78-93. Penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Ingles and concurred in by Associate Justices Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap and Dorothy Montejo-Gonzaga.
3. Records, pp. 304-309. Penned by Presiding Judge Rosario Abigail M. Dris-Villanueva.
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 THEREFORE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES." Approved: June 7, 2002.
5. Records, pp. 1-4.
6.Id. at 1.
7.Id. at 3.
8. Referred to as "PO3 Tan" in some parts of the rollo and the records.
9. CA rollo, p. 41.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 42.
12.Id.
13.Id.
14.Id. at 43.
15.Id.
16.Id.
17. Records, pp. 304-309.
18. CA rollo, p. 45.
19.Id. at 43-45.
20. Records, pp. 314-315.
21. CA rollo, pp. 78-93.
22.Id. at 92.
23.Id. at 93.
24.Id. at 94-96.
25.Id. at 19-39.
26. G.R. No. 217661, June 26, 2019.
27.Id.
28. TSN, June 13, 2016, pp 4-11.
29.Rollo, p. 12.
30.Id.
31. CA rollo, p. 30.
32. 829 Phil. 262 (2018).
33.Id. at 271-272.
34. G.R. No. 223036, July 10, 2019.
35. 807 Phil. 1017, 1030 (2017).
36.People v. Omamos, supra 34.
37. CA rollo, p. 31.
38. 750 Phil. 212 (2015).
39.Id. at 228-239.
40. CA rollo, p. 88.
41.Id. at 92.