SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 240695. September 29, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. JONATHAN SY y CRUZ, FERNANDO CARLOS y SORIANO AND ARSENIO MALEZA y TAC-AN, accused;
ARSENIO MALEZA y TAC-AN, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated29 September 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 240695 (People of the Philippines v. Jonathan Sy y Cruz, Fernando Carlos y Soriano and Arsenio Maleza y Tac-an, accused; Arsenio Maleza y Tac-an, accused-appellant). — Assailed in this ordinary appeal is the Decision 1 dated February 7, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08000, which partially granted the appeal, but affirmed the portion of the Decision 2 dated December 8, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City, Branch 127 in Criminal Case Nos. C-89023, C-89024, C-89562, C-89563 and C-89564, finding accused-appellant Arsenio Maleza y Tac-an (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165.
The Facts
Accused-appellant and Ernesto Carlos y Galvez (Ernesto) were charged with violation of Section 26 in relation to Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The accusatory portion of the Information filed against them reads:
Criminal Case No. C-89562
xxx xxx xxx
That on or about the 24th day of November, 2012 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the above-named accused, conspiring together and mutually helping one another, without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to SPO1 NOEL GREGORIO, who posed as buyer, METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (Shabu) weighing 0.06 gram, knowing the same to be such, with Arsenio Maleza y Tac-an receiving the buy-bust money from said SPO1 Noel Gregorio, after which immediately turned over the same to accused Ernesto Carlos y Galvez who handed to SPO1 Noel Gregorio subject plastic sachet and from whom the buy-bust money was recovered.
Contrary to law. 3
Criminal Case Nos. C-89562 and C-89563-64 (which were filed against Ernesto only) were ordered consolidated with Criminal Case Nos. C-89023 and C-89024, which were filed against Jonathan Sy y Cruz (Sy) and Fernando Carlos y Soriano (Fernando), considering that they arose from the same incident and involving common witnesses and evidence. Thereafter, upon motion of Ernesto's counsel, Criminal Case Nos. C-89563-64 were ordered dismissed, and Ernesto's name was dropped in Criminal Case No. C-89562, in view of Ernesto's death. 4
During trial, the prosecution presented the following witnesses: (1) P/Chief Inspector Lourdeliza Cejes (PCI Cejes), the forensic chemist; 5 (2) Police Officer 2 Randulfo Hipolito (PO2 Hipolito), who was assigned at the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special Operations Task Group and received the turnover of the persons of accused-appellant, Ernesto, Sy, and Fernando, as well as the evidence seized and documents; 6 (3) Senior Police Officer (SPO) 1 Noel Gregorio (SPO1 Gregorio), who acted as the poseur-buyer; 7 and (4) SPO2 Arnel Victoriano (SPO2 Victoriano), who was the back-up to poseur-buyer SPO1 Gregorio in the buy-bust operation. 8
According to the prosecution, in the evening of November 23, 2012, a confidential informant (CI) reported the rampant selling of illegal drugs of Ernesto and accused-appellant. 9 Accordingly, a team was formed to conduct a buy-bust operation, composed of SPO1 Gregorio, acting as poseur-buyer, and SPO2 Victoriano, SPO3 Fernando Moran, SPO1 Remigio Valderama, Jr., PO3 Ferdinand Modina, PO3 Ronald Allan Mateo, PO2 Borban Paras and SPO1 Jerome Pascual, as back-up. After the briefing, the buy-bust team waited for the CI on A. Mabini St. Thereafter, the CI arrived and informed them that accused-appellant was already in the target area. 10 CAIHTE
SPO1 Gregorio and the CI approached accused-appellant on General Luna Street, while the rest of the team followed discretely behind them. The CI told accused-appellant "Bibyahe kami, isang tusok." 11 SPO1 Gregorio then handed accused-appellant the P1,000.00 marked money. Accused-appellant escorted them towards Ernesto and gave the latter the P1,000.00 marked money. At this point, Ernesto invited them inside his house and led them to the second floor thereof. While inside, SPO1 Gregorio noticed Sy and Fernando nearby preparing drug paraphernalia. Meanwhile, Ernesto produced a black pouch bag from which he took out a plastic sachet of suspected shabu (0.06 gram). Ernesto handed said plastic sachet of suspected shabu to SPO1 Gregorio, thereafter, they exited the house. Once outside, SPO1 Gregorio scratched his head, which was the pre-arranged signal to effect an arrest. He then arrested accused-appellant and Ernesto, and recovered the P1,000.00 marked money from Ernesto's pocket.
Upon reaching SPO1 Gregorio, accused-appellant, and Ernesto, SPO1 Gregorio informed SPO2 Victoriano that there were other suspects inside the house. SPO1 Gregorio then marked the evidence he seized from Ernesto, as follows: (1) the sachet of suspected shabu which he purchased from Ernesto was marked "CARLOS MALEZA GREGORIO-1 BUY-BUST 11-24-12"; (2) five sachets of suspected shabu which were recovered from the black pouch of Ernesto were marked "CARLOS MALEZA GREGORIO-2" to "CARLOS MALEZA GREGORIO-6" and on each sachet the date "11-24-12"; (3) a digital weighing scale was marked "CARLOS GREGORIO-7 11-24-12" with SPO1 Gregorio's signature; (4) a pair of scissors was marked "CARLOS GREGORIO-8 11-24-12" with SPO1 Gregorio's signature; (5) a sachet with the inscription "CALYPSO" was marked "CARLOS GREGORIO-9 11-24-12" with SPO1 Gregorio's signature; and (6) Ernesto's black pouch was marked CARLOS GREGORIO 11-24-12."
SPO2 Victoriano corroborated SPO1 Gregorio's testimony. 12 He testified that when he entered the house of Ernesto, he saw Sy and Fernando sniffing shabu. He introduced himself as a police officer and arrested them, immediately marking the seized paraphernalia, as follows: (1) two plastic sachets with traces of white substance were marked "CARLOS, et al./VICTORIANO-1 11-24-12" and "CARLOS, et al./VICTORIANO-2 11-24-12"; (2) a rolled aluminum foil was marked "CARLOS, et al./VICTORIANO-3 11-24-12"; (3) an aluminum foil strip was marked "CARLOS, et al./VICTORIANO-4 11-24-12"; and (4) a green disposable lighter was marked "CARLOS, et al./VICTORIANO-5 11-24-12," all with SPO2 Victoriano's signatures.
Thereafter, the arresting officers brought accused-appellant, Ernesto, Sy, and Fernando, together with all the pieces of evidence, to the police station. They turned over the seized evidence to PO2 Hipolito, who later submitted them to PCI Cejes, the forensic chemist, for evaluation. All the seized evidence containing white substance tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, as reflected in the Physical Science Report No. D-379-12. 13
On the other hand, the defense presented Fernando, 14 Sy, 15 and accused-appellant, 16 who denied the charges. They all testified that they were just celebrating Fernando's birthday at home when police officers suddenly arrived and arrested them. Fernando's mother and Ernesto's wife, Imelda Carlos (Imelda), corroborated their testimonies. 17
The Ruling of the RTC
In a Joint Decision 18 dated December 8, 2015, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, viz.:
1. In Criminal Case No. C-89023, the prosecution having established with moral certainty the guilt beyond reasonable doubt of both Accused FERNANDO CARLOS y SORIANO and JONATHAN SY y CRUZ, of the offense of Violation of Section 12, Article II of R.A. 9165, this Court hereby sentences them to suffer the penalty of six (6) months and one (1) day as the minimum to one (1) year and tour (4) months as the maximum and a fine of ten thousand pesos (Php10,000.00).
2. In Criminal Case No. C-89024, the prosecution having established with moral certainty the guilt beyond reasonable doubt of both Accused FERNANDO CARLOS y SORIANO and JONATHAN SY y CRUZ, of the offense of Violation of Section 15, Article II of R.A. 9165, and, in the absence of any allegation in the Information of prior use and conviction as provided for thereunder, the Court hereby sentences them to undergo at least six (6) months of rehabilitation at the DOH-Treatment and Rehabilitation Center, Camp Bagong Diwa, Bicutan, Taguig City.
3. In Criminal Case No. C-89562, this Court hereby sentences Accused ARSENIO MALEZA y TAC-AN to suffer the penalty of Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).
With the judgment of conviction, the Jail Warden of Caloocan City Jail, Caloocan City is hereby directed to cause the immediate transfer of custody of Accused ARSENIO MALEZA y TAC-AN to the New Bilibid Prison, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City for the service of sentence, and for the said Jail Warden to forthwith submit a written report of his compliance or non-compliance with this order within fifteen (15) days from receipt hereof.
The drugs and drug paraphernalia subject matter of these cases are hereby ordered forfeited and confiscated in favor of the government. In this regard, the Branch Clerk of Court of this Sala is hereby directed to turn over the same to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for its immediate destruction in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED. 19
Aggrieved, accused-appellant and Sy appealed the RTC's Decision and elevated their conviction to the CA. 20 DETACa
The Ruling of the CA
In a Decision 21 dated February 7, 2018, the CA sustained the conviction of accused-appellant for the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165. According to the CA, the designation of the crime in the Information against accused-appellant as "Violation of R.A. No. 9165, Section 26 in relation to Section 5 thereof" was erroneous. Section 26 of R.A. No. 9165 punishes the act of conspiracy or mere agreement to commit the offenses enumerated therein, and not the actual execution thereof. Conspiracy as a crime should be distinguished from conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability, the latter being applicable to the case at bar.
Nonetheless, the CA explained that such error in the Information is not fatal since the body thereof contains a recital of facts which includes all the elements for illegal sale of prohibited drugs. 22 Considering that the prosecution offered evidence establishing the presence of all the elements, the CA found accused-appellant guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
Regarding the alleged failure to strictly comply with the requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, the CA ruled that such procedural lapse is not fatal and will not render the items seized inadmissible in evidence. According to the appellate court, what is essential is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, which is presumed to have been preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will or proof that the evidence has been tampered with. Thus, the accused-appellant bears the burden of showing that the evidence was tampered or meddled with in order to overcome the presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers and the presumption that public officers properly discharged their duties. 23 Considering that accused-appellant failed to discharge this burden, the CA found that the arresting officers sufficiently complied with the requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.
However, the CA modified the RTC ruling in that it acquitted Sy of violation of Section 12, R.A. No. 9165, and ordered his immediate release from custody, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is PARTLY GRANTED. The assailed December 8, 2015 Joint Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 127, Caloocan City, is MODIFIED in that, in Criminal Case No. C-89023, appellant Jonathan Sy y Cruz is ACQUITTED of Violation of Section 12 of Republic Act No. 9165. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from custody, unless he is being held for some other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Director of the National Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The Director is directed to report to this Court the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision.
Except as modified herein, the rest of the assailed Joint Decision STANDS.
SO ORDERED. 24
Thereafter, accused-appellant filed his Notice of Appeal. 25 On August 6, 2018, the CA elevated to this Court the records of this case, 26 pursuant to its Resolution 27 dated March 19, 2018 which gave due course to the Notice of Appeal.
In the Resolution 28 dated July 30, 2019, this Court noted the records of the case forwarded by the CA and required the parties to file their respective supplemental briefs, should they so desire, within 30 days from notice.
On November 12, 2019, accused-appellant filed a Manifestation 29 dated November 8, 2019 stating that he would no longer file a supplemental brief. Likewise, the Office of the Solicitor General, on behalf of the People of the Philippines, filed a similar Manifestation 30 dated November 6, 2019. aDSIHc
Accused-appellant contends that: (1) the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses cast doubt as to whether there was a legitimate buy-bust operation conducted; and (2) the prosecution failed to establish the integrity and identity of the seized drug paraphernalia beyond reasonable doubt. 31
Our Ruling
After an exhaustive examination of the records, this Court finds the appeal to be meritorious. Accused-appellant should be acquitted based on reasonable doubt.
To secure a conviction 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 of the sale and its consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 32
The illegal narcotics are the corpusdelicti of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs such that it is primordial that the fact that the substance illegally possessed and sold in the first place is the same substance offered in court as exhibit and must be proven with the same degree of certitude necessary to sustain a guilty verdict. 33 This requirement necessarily arises from the illegal drug's unique characteristic that renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise. 34 A conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs cannot be sustained if there is lingering doubt on the identity of the drugs in question.
In the prosecution of drugs cases, the procedural safeguards that are embodied in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 are material, since their compliance affects the corpusdelicti which is the dangerous drug itself and warrants the identity and integrity of the substances and other evidence that are seized by the apprehending officers. 35 Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, states:
SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof[.]
Under the said section, prior to its amendment by R.A. No. 10640, 36 the apprehending team shall, among others, immediately after seizure and confiscation conduct a physical inventory and photograph of the seized items in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his/her representative or counsel, and in addition, in the presence of the following: (1) a representative from the media; (2) a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ); and (3) any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy of the same, and the seized drugs must be turned over to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory within 24 hours from confiscation for examination. 37
This Court, in People v. Tomawis, 38 underscored the importance and purpose of requiring the presence of said witnesses, thus:
The presence of the witnesses from the DOJ, media, and from public elective office is necessary to protect against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug. Using the language of the Court in People v. Mendoza, without the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the DOJ and any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the drugs, the evils of switching, "planting" or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of RA 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the subject sachet that was evidence of the corpusdelicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused.
The presence of the three witnesses must be secured not only during file 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. If the buy-bust operation is legitimately conducted, the presence of the insulating witnesses would also controvert the usual defense of frame-up as the witnesses would be able to testify that the buy-bust operation and inventory of the seized drugs were done in their presence in accordance with Section 21 of RA 9165.
The practice of police operatives of not bringing to the intended place of arrest the three witnesses, when they could easily do so — and 'calling them in' to the place of inventory to witness the inventory and photographing of the drugs only after the buy-bust operation has already been finished — does not achieve the purpose of the law in having these witnesses prevent or insulate against the planting of drugs.
To restate, the presence of the three witnesses at the time of seizure and confiscation of the drugs must be secured and complied with at the time of the warrantless arrest; such that they are required to be at or near the intended place of the arrest so that they can be ready to witness the inventory and photographing of the seized and confiscated drugs 'immediately after seizure and confiscation.'39 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
In this regard, the prosecution bears the burden of proving a valid cause for noncompliance with the procedure laid down in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. It has the positive duty to demonstrate observance thereto in such a way that during the trial proceedings, it must initiate in acknowledging and justifying any perceived deviations from the requirements of the law. Its failure to follow the mandated procedure must be adequately explained, and must be proven as a fact in accordance with the rules on evidence. It should take note that the rules require that the apprehending officers do not simply mention a justifiable ground, but also clearly state this ground in their sworn affidavit, coupled with a statement on the steps they took to preserve the integrity of the seized items. Strict adherence to Section 21 is required where the quantity of illegal drugs seized is miniscule, since it is highly susceptible to planting, tampering or alteration of evidence. 40
In the present case, the prosecution miserably failed to present evidence that the buy-bust team complied with the foregoing mandatory requirements under Section 21, paragraph 1 of R.A. No. 9165. ETHIDa
While the prosecution attempted to show that the identity of the seized drugs was preserved, the prosecution was strikingly silent regarding the presence of the required witnesses during the arrest, and thereafter, confiscation and inventory of the illegal drugs.
In their "Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay" 41 dated November 25, 2012, SPO1 Gregorio and SPO2 Victoriano did not even mention intending or attempting to coordinate with an elected official, the DOJ or any media representative. They did not state any justifiable ground for their failure to ensure the presence of said witnesses. Worse, the absence of said witnesses was never even brought up nor discussed during trial. 42 The records are absolutely bereft of any indication whatsoever that the required witnesses were present or that any effort was exerted at all to secure their presence during the arrest and inventory of the seized paraphernalia. The absence of the required witnesses is confirmed by the fact that the "Receipt of Physical Inventory" 43 dated November 24, 2012 do not bear their signatures as mandated under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.
Undeniably, the requirement of securing witnesses to the arrest and inventory under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was completely ignored.
The lack of the inventory signed by accused-appellant himself or by his representative as well as by the representative of the media, the DOJ, and the elected official as required by law could very well be held to mean that no dangerous drug had been seized from accused-appellant on that occasion. 44
While Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 provides a saving clause for non-compliance with the guidelines, there must exist justifiable grounds for its non-observance and the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items must be preserved by the apprehending officer or team.
In the instant case, the apprehending team neither offered a justification nor even recognized the flagrant irregularities in their apprehension of accused-appellant and the seizure and confiscation of the illegal drugs. In fact, the apprehending team displayed an egregious indifference towards the mandatory guidelines under R.A. No. 9165. Thus, the RTC gravely erred in ruling that the arresting team sufficiently complied with the requirements under the law. 45 The CA likewise gravely erred in relying on the saving clause under Section 21 (1) and on the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties to justify the conviction of accused-appellant.
Suffice it to state that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions cannot substitute for compliance and mend the broken links. For it is a mere disputable presumption that cannot prevail over clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. 46 Our ruling in Casona v. People47 is apropos, to wit:
Too much reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties on the part of the arresting officers in the prosecution of drug-related offenses is unwarranted if the records show non-compliance with the affirmative safeguards prescribed to preserve the chain of custody of the contraband. The presumption of regularity applies only when there is no showing of non-compliance.
Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpusdelicti have been compromised. Accordingly, the prosecution failed to discharge the quantum of evidence needed to convict accused-appellant. The acquittal of accused-appellant is warranted.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated February 7, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08000 is REVERSEDand SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Arsenio Maleza y Tac-an is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for some other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections for immediate implementation. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to report to this Court, within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution, the action he has taken. Copies shall also be furnished to the Director General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information. cSEDTC
Let entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 2-12; penned by Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes with Presiding Justice Romeo F. Barza and Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez (now a Member of this Court) concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 14-40; penned by Presiding Judge Victoriano B. Cabanos.
3. Id. at 16.
4. Id. at 18-19.
5. Id. at 20-21.
6. Id. at 21-22.
7. Id. at 22-24.
8. Id. at 24-26.
9. Id. at 22-23.
10. Id. at 23.
11. Id.
12. TSN, May 5, 2015.
13. Folder of Exhibits, p. 2.
14. TSN, August 17, 2015.
15. TSN, September 14, 2015.
16. TSN, October 12, 2015.
17. TSN, November 10, 2015.
18. CA rollo, pp. 14-40.
19. Id. at 39-40.
20. Id. at 41.
21. Rollo, pp. 2-12.
22. Id. at 8-10.
23. Id. at 10-11.
24. Id. at 11-12.
25. Id. at 13-16.
26. Id. at 1.
27. Id. at 17.
28. Id. at 20.
29. Id. at 26-30.
30. Id. at 22-25.
31. CA rollo, pp. 65-72.
32. People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017).
33. People v. Malabanan, G.R. No. 241950, April 10, 2019.
34. People v. Climaco, 687 Phil. 593, 604 (2012), citing People v. Alcuizar, 662 Phil. 794, 801 (2011).
35. Tolentino v. People, G.R. No. 227217, February 12, 2020.
36. Entitled "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,'" approved on July 15, 2014. The crime subject of this case was allegedly committed before the enactment of R.A. No. 10640, or on November 24, 2012.
37. People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018; People v. Que, 824 Phil. 882, 903-905 (2018).
38. 830 Phil. 385 (2018).
39. Id. at 408-409.
40. People v. Sipin, 833 Phil. 67 (2018).
41. Folder of Exhibits, pp. 18-19.
42. TSN, November 18, 2014; TSN, May 5, 2015.
43. Folder of Exhibits, p. 8.
44. Casona v. People, 818 Phil. 76, 87 (2017).
45. CA rollo, p. 36.
46. People v. Bumanglag, G.R. No. 228884, August 19, 2019.
47. Supra note 44 at 79.