People v. Mendoza y Reyes

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 253231. November 24, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. SHERWIN MENDOZA y REYES @ "AWIN", accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated24 November 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 253231 (People of the Philippines v. Sherwin Mendoza y Reyes @ "Awin"). — On appeal 1 is the February 11, 2020 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12273. In the assailed decision, the appellate court affirmed with modification the November 14, 2018 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 54 of Manila finding accused-appellant Sherwin Mendoza y Reyes alias "Awin" (accused-appellant) guilty of violation of Sections 5 and 11 of Article II, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, 4 otherwise known as Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, for Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs.

The Antecedents

In Criminal Case No. 17-331662 for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the accusatory portion of the criminal Information 5 provides:

That on or about December 10, 2016, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not having been authorized by law to sell, trade, deliver or give away to another any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell one (1) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing ZERO POINT ONE SIX THREE (0.163) gram subsequently marked "LC" 12/10/16 with signature weighing ZERO POINT ONE FOUR EIGHT (0.148) gram containing white crystalline substance of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

Contrary to law. 6

Accused-appellant was also charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, under Criminal Case No. 17-331663 which reads:

That on or about December 10, 2016, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly possess under his custody and control three (3) heat-sealed plastic sachets weighing ZERO POINT ONE NINE ZERO (0.190) gram with subsequent marking "LC1" 12/10/16 with signature, ZERO POINT ONE FOUR TWO (0.142) gram with subsequent marking "LC2" 12/10/16 with signature, and FIVE POINT FOUR THREE NINE (5.439) grams with subsequent marking "LC3" 12/10/16 with signature or with a total weight of FIVE POINT SEVEN SEVEN ONE (5.771) grams containing white crystalline substance of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. CAIHTE

Contrary to law. 7

On February 8, 2017, accused-appellant was arraigned under Criminal Case No. 17-331662, where he pleaded "not guilty" to the charge of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. 8 Under Criminal Case No. 17-331663, accused-appellant was arraigned on February 27, 2017. 9 After the termination of pre-trial held on February 16, 2017 and April 20, 2017 respectively for Criminal Case Nos. 17-331662 and 17-331663, separate trial ensued. 10 On June 23, 2017, Criminal Case No. 17-331663 was consolidated with Criminal Case No. 17-331662 and a joint trial proceeded. 11

Version of the Prosecution

The prosecution's version of events shows that around 1:00 p.m. of December 10, 2016, a confidential informant (CI) went to the District Special Operation Unit of the Philippine National Police in United Nation (UN) Avenue Ermita, Manila to report some illegal activities, particularly the selling of shabu of a certain Awin, in Quiapo, Manila. The certain Awin was later identified as accused-appellant Sherwin Mendoza y Reyes. A team of police operatives composed of SPO1 Allan Bacani (SPO1 Bacani), PO3 Lester Caguintuan (PO3 Caguintuan), PO3 Dodie Daquioag (PO3 Daquioag), PO3 Jonathan Acido (PO3 Acido), PO1 Ronnie Tan (PO1 Tan), PO1 Lowie Boy Pinlac (PO1 Pinlac), PO1 Jason Lumangyao (PO1 Lumangyao), and PO1 Rocelle Ann Mendano (PO1 Mendano), received said report. 12

Acting on said report, Police Commander Inspector Michael C. Garcia (PCI Garcia) coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for the conduct of a buy-bust operation against accused-appellant. At around 7 o'clock of even date, the police operatives conducted an operational briefing. PO3 Caguintuan was designated to act as poseur buyer and was handed live (5) pieces of one hundred peso (P100.00) bills (with serial numbers AL477044, AZ776399, AS062506, AK100597, and AX144765) which were brought to the crime laboratory for powder dusting treatment. The police operatives agreed that PO3 Caguintuan would signal the consummation of the sale of drugs by removing his bull cap. 13

At 8:20 p.m., PO3 Caguintuan and the CI arrived near the corner of Arlegui along Quezon Boulevard in Manila. Accused-appellant later arrived and approached the CI who introduced the poseur buyer as someone interested in buying drugs. Accused-appellant then demanded payment prompting PO3 Caguintuan to hand accused-appellant the powder-dusted buy-bust money. Accused-appellant took out from the right pocket of his short pants three (3) pieces of transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substances. Accused-appellant then instructed the poseur-buyer to pick one. The poseur-buyer picked a sachet and placed it in the right front pocket of his pants and removed his bull cap, the agreed pre-arranged signal. The back-up operatives immediately rushed in. PO3 Caguintuan grabbed the right hand of the accused-appellant and recovered from him two (2) more sachets of suspected shabu. He then placed the sachets in his left front pocket. PO3 Caguintuan also instructed accused-appellant to empty his pockets. When accused-appellant did, the marked money and another sachet of suspected shabu were also recovered from him. PO3 Caguintuan then placed said sachet in his right front pocket. Thereafter, accused-appellant was informed of his Miranda rights and placed under arrest. 14

The police operatives were about to conduct an inventory of the items recovered from accused-appellant and call the attention of the barangay authorities when the crowd that had gathered started to become hostile. Unidentified persons started to snatch accused-appellant from the custody of the police operatives. Accordingly, the police operatives proceeded to the Police Station 3 to conduct the inventory and photograph the contraband recovered. All that time, the suspected drugs remain in the possession of PO3 Caguintuan. 15

At the Police Station 3 some ten (10) minutes away from the scene of the buy-bust operation, accused-appellant and the recovered evidence were turned over by PO3 Caguintuan to the duty investigator, PO3 Jansen Rey San Pedro (PO3 San Pedro). Thereafter, the actual inventory and marking of recovered evidence were conducted in the presence of the accused-appellant, the investigator PO3 San Pedro, barangay kagawad Rodelito Jurilla and media representative Danny Garendola. The sachet containing the contraband which was bought from the accused-appellant was signed and marked "LC 12/10/16," representing the initials of PO3 Caguintuan and the date of the arrest. The two (2) pieces of heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets recovered from accused-appellant's right hand upon arrest were signed and marked "LC1 12/10/16" and "LC2 12/10/16." The sachet seized from accused-appellant when he was made to empty his pockets was signed and marked "LC3 12/10/16." All four (4) sachets were briefly turned over to the investigator for the preparation of the documents to be submitted to the Crime Laboratory, such as the Joint Affidavit of Apprehension, Booking Sheet and Arrest Report, Request for Laboratory Examination, Receipt of Property Evidence Seized, Chain of Custody, Spot Report, Request for Powder Dusting, Request for Ultra Violet Examination and Receipt of Turn Over of the Suspect. Thereafter, the subject sachets, as well as the marked money, were returned to PO3 Caguintuan, who then brought the same to the Crime Laboratory for qualitative and quantitative examination. 16

At the crime laboratory, Forensic Chemical Officer P/SI Jeffrey Reyes (PSI Reyes) personally received from PO3 Caguintuan the four (4) plastic sachets. He examined specimens "LC 12/10/16," "LC1 12/10/16," and "LC3 12/10/16," which have recorded weight of 0.148 gram, 0.190 gram, 0.0142 gram and 5.439 grams, respectively. All tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu as indicated in Chemistry Report No. D2396-16. 17

Version of the Defense.

Presenting the accused-appellant as its sole witness, 18 the defense presented a different version of what transpired and alleged that on December 10, 2016, at around 6:00 p.m., accused-appellant was about to buy DVD in Hidalgo St. when a commotion occurred inside the store. He was just casually observing when a police officer suddenly grabbed his arm and told him that he was one of those persons causing trouble thereat. He told the police officer that he was just buying DVD but the latter did not believe him and brought him to the police station together with the other persons arrested. Accused-appellant was then detained at the Barbosa Police Station and thereafter brought to Police Station 5. Thereat, the police officers brought out plastic sachets of shabu from a drawer, placed it on the table and took pictures. PO3 Caguintuan likewise brought out five (5) pieces of One Hundred Peso (P100.00) bills and wiped it to the handcuffed hands of the accused-appellant. Accused-appellant got scared with what PO3 Caguintuan did and he cried while pleading his innocence. Accused-appellant denied the charges being filed against him. 19 DETACa

The RTC Ruling

In a Decision 20 dated November 14, 2018, the RTC ruled that all elements constituting the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs were present in this consolidated case. The trial court found the testimony of PO3 Caguintuan positive, clear and categorical that accused-appellant sold to him crystalline substance in a plastic sachet and when frisked at the time of arrest, several plastic sachets containing crystalline Substance were also confiscated from him. The crystalline substance later on tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. 21

In convicting the accused-appellant, the RTC decreed:

WHEREFORE, all premises considered, under [C]riminal [C]ase [N]o. 17-331662, accused Sherwin Mendoza is hereby found guilty of violation of [S]ection 5, Article II of RA 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer the imprisonment of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).

Under [C]riminal [C]ase [N]o. 17-331663, accused Sherwin Mendoza is hereby found guilty of violation of [S]ection 11, Article II of RA 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer the imprisonment [of] twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00).

The accused shall serve his sentence simultaneously and shall be credited with the period of his temporary confinement pending trial.

Corollary, the Branch Clerk of this Court is hereby directed to turn over all the drug evidence in these cases to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) within five (5) days from receipt of the copy of this decision and submit to this Court a report of such turn over. The PDEA, in turn, is hereby directed to immediately destroy the drug evidence turned over in accordance with the existing rules and to submit to the Court a report on such destruction of evidence.

Furnish the Public Prosecutor, the accused, his counsel, the complaining witnesses, the Warden of the Manila City, the PDEA Director and the Branch Clerk of this Court copies of this order.

SO ORDERED. 22 (Emphasis in the original)

Accused-appellant elevated the case to the CA via a Notice of Appeal 23 that was filed on November 16, 2018.

Ruling of the CA

The CA denied the appeal and sustained, albeit with modifications, accused-appellant's conviction for violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 in a Decision 24 dated February 11, 2020. The CA disposed:

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

The assailed Decision doled November 14, 2018 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 54 is hereby AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:

1) In Criminal Case No. 17-331662, accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00), accused-appellant not being eligible for parole;

2. In Criminal Case No. 17-331663, accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day as minimum to thirty (30) years as maximum and to pay a fine of Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (P400,000.00).

SO ORDERED. 25 (Emphasis in the original)

Hence, the instant appeal. 26

The Court required the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs if they so desire. 27 However, both parties opted to forego with the filing of supplemental brief and maintained that they already made an exhaustive discussion of their respective positions in the briefs filed before the CA. 28

The Issue

Whether the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crimes charged had been proven beyond reasonable doubt. aDSIHc

The Ruling of the Court

The appeal is without merit.

Under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the requisites for a conviction for the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs are as follows: a) proof as to the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; (b) evidence of the delivery of the thing sold and the payment; and (c) the presentation of the corpus delicti in court as evidence. 29 It is imperative to prove that the transaction transpired, and that the corpus delicti be presented in court as contraband seized from the accused. 30

On the other hand, the elements of the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, of the same law, are: (a) the accused was in possession of the dangerous drug; (b) such possession is not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the dangerous drug. 31

All elements for the successful conviction of the crimes of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs were duly established by the prosecution. Credible testimonies of prosecution witnesses show that accused-appellant was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu during a buy-bust operations. Accused-appellant was positively identified by the poseur buyer, PO3 Caguintuan, as the one who sold and delivered to him a heat-sealed plastic sachet containing crystalline substance in exchange for five (5) pieces of marked P100.00 bills. The incidental search on accused-appellant after his arrest yielded three (3) other heat-sealed plastic sachets which similarly contained crystalline substances. Upon examination, these recovered crystalline substances tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drugs the accused-appellant was unauthorized to possess.

In an attempt to exonerate himself, accused-appellant questions the legality of the warrantless arrest claiming that he was merely observing a commotion when he was suddenly accosted without a valid warrant. 32 He claims that in view of the unlawful warrantless arrest, the alleged confiscated shabu should not have been admitted as evidence. Without the confiscated shabu, accused-appellant's conviction cannot be sustained. 33

Accused-appellant's defense of invalid warrantless arrest fails to persuade. He failed to raise the issue on the matter before his arraignment. Instead, he voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction and actively participated in the trial. Accused-appellant is now estopped to challenge the alleged invalidity of his arrest. The right of an accused, duly assisted by a counsel, to question any supposed defects in his arrest are deem waived if not made before his arraignment. 34

Besides, accused-appellant was arrested in flagrante delicto during a buy bust operation. In People v. Frias, 35 the Court characterized a buy bust operation in this wise:

A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which in recent years has been accepted as a valid and effective mode of apprehending drug pushers. In a buy-bust operation, the idea to commit a crime originates from the offender, without anybody inducing or prodding him to commit the offense. If carried out with due regard for constitutional and legal safeguards, a buy-bust operation deserves judicial sanction.

Clearly, accused-appellant's arrest made after an entrapment operation in the form of a buy-bust, does not require a warrant inasmuch as it is considered a valid "warrantless arrest," in line with the provisions of Rule 113, Section 5 (a) 36 of the Revised Rules of Court. 37

Accused-appellant also assails the identity of the drug evidence. He contends that procedural lapses committed by the police officers puts to doubt the integrity of the very corpus delicti of the crimes imputed to him. 38

We are not convinced.

In drug related cases, it is imperative that the corpus delicti or the drug subject of the crime charged is identified, proved, and adduced in court as evidence. The identity of said drug should be established with the same unwavering exactitude as that required to make a finding of guilt. 39 To preserve the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti, the following chain of custody procedure embodied in Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, must be complied with: viz.:

Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrender Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instrument/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — x x x

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items 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, with an elected public official and 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 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, finally, That noncompliance of 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 and custody over said items.

xxx xxx xxx 40

It is essential that the prosecution must be able to account for each and every link of the metaphorical chain, from the moment the narcotics are confiscated and up to its presentation and identification as evidence in court. 41

To achieve an unbroken chain of custody, the prosecution must establish the following links in the chain: 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. 42

In this case, the prosecution was able to establish sufficient compliance with the chain of custody rule. ETHIDa

First, prosecution evidence shows that the subject narcotics contained in four (4) heat-sealed sachets were confiscated by poseur buyer, PO3 Caguintuan from accused-appellant in a buy bust operation. When the crowd at the target site became hostile, the police operatives were forced to proceed to the nearest police station. There, the narcotics were inventoried, marked and photographed in the presence of the accused-appellant and the statutory witnesses, barangay kagawad Rodelito Jurilla and media representative Danny Garendola. 43 The heat-scaled plastic specimens were signed by PO3 Caguintuan and marked "LC 12/10/16," "LC1 12/10/16," "LC2 12/10/16," and "LC3 12/10/16." Second, PO3 Caguintuan briefly turned over the contraband to the investigator, PO3 San Pedro for the preparation of the necessary documentations. After the specimens were properly documented, the pieces of evidence were immediately returned to PO3 Caguintuan. 44Third, after preparation of the paperworks, PO3 Caguintuan brought the suspected contraband to the Crime Laboratory for qualitative and quantitative examination. 45 Forensic Chemical Officer PSI Reyes personally received from PO3 Caguintuan the subject four (4) plastic sachets and proceeded with the chemical analysis. 46 He examined specimens "LC 12/10/16," "LC1 12/10/16," "LC2 12/10/16," and "LC3 12/10/16," which have recorded weight of 0.148 gram, 0.190 gram, 0.142 gram, and 5.438 grams respectively, and later on tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu as shown in Chemical Report No. D-2396-16. 47Fourth, it was stipulated upon by the parties that PSI Reyes personally submitted the specimens to the court and identified them to be the same plastic sachets he examined at the crime laboratory and the subject of the chemical report he prepared. 48

Clearly, all the elements constituting the crimes charged are obtaining and duly established. The testimonial and documentary evidence show that the police officers substantially complied with the chain of custody requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. Accused-appellant miserably failed to provide competent proof that arresting officers were impelled with ill-motive that would overcome the presumption of regularity. Also, there is no compelling reason to doubt the veracity of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses who are police officers presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner. 49

Certainly, accused-appellant's bare, unsubstantiated, unpersuasive and uncorroborated denials more so when coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti, will not suffice to absolve his from any liability. 50 Denials have no evidentiary weight in law as against the credible assertions of witnesses who testified in the affirmative. 51 The positive testimonies of police officers who caught the accused-appellants in flagrante delicto are usually credited with more weight and credence, in the absence of evidence that they have been inspired by an improper or ill motive, than the defenses of denial and frame-up of an accused which have been invariably viewed with disfavor for it can easily be concocted. 52 Otherwise stated, the defense of denial must be proved with strong and convincing evidence in order to prosper. Accused-appellant failed to do so.

The CA also correctly modified the penalty imposed by the RTC. Accused-appellant was found to be in possession of three (3) heat sealed plastic sachets of shabu with a total weight of 5.771 grams. Such quantity of dangerous drugs is punishable under Section 11, paragraph 2 (2), Article II of R.A. No. 9165, as follows:

(2) Imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are five (5) grams or more but less than ten (10) grams of x x x methamphetamine hydrochloride or ''shabu"[.] x x x

Under the foregoing provision, the imposable penalty should have been for an imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00). However, in People v. Pis-an, 53 the maximum penalty of life imprisonment may only be imposed when the crime of illegal possession was committed in the presence of two (2) or more persons or in a social gathering pursuant to Section 13 54 of R.A. No. 9165. Since the situations provided in Section 13 is not the case here, the maximum imposable penalty should be below life imprisonment which is currently pegged at 40 years and 1 day. In view of the ruling in People v. Obias, Jr., 55 accused-appellant is correctly meted the penalty of imprisonment ranging from 20 years and one day, as minimum, to 30 years, as maximum.

Consequently, We find no reversible error in the decisions of the trial court and the appellate court in holding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offenses charged.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated February 11, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12273 is hereby AFFIRMED. cSEDTC

SO ORDERED." (Hernando, J., on official leave.)

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 24-25. See Notice of Appeal dated March 2, 2020.

2.Id. at 3-23; penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla (now, retired Member of this Court), with Associate Justices Maria Filomena D. Singh and Louis P. Acosta, concurring.

3. CA rollo, pp. 64-72; rendered by Presiding Judge Maria Paz R. Reyes-Yson.

4. Entitled "An Act Instituting the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, Repealing Republic Act No. 6425, Otherwise Known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as Amended, Providing Funds Therefor, and for Other Purposes," approved on June 7, 2002.

5. Records, Criminal Case No. 17-331662, p. 1.

6.Id.

7. Records, Criminal Case No. 17-331663, p. 1.

8.Id. at 58.

9. CA rollo, p. 65.

10.Id.

11.Id.

12. CA rollo, pp. 82-83. See Brief for the Appellee.

13.Id. at 83.

14.Id. at 83-84.

15.Id. at 84.

16.Id. at 84-85.

17.Id. at 85.

18.Id. at 69.

19.Id. at 52. See Brief for the Accused-Appellant.

20.Supra note 3.

21. CA rollo, pp. 71-72.

22.Id. at 72.

23.Id. at 14.

24.Supra note 2.

25. CA rollo, p. 118.

26.Id. at 120-121. See Notice of Appeal dated March 2, 2020.

27.Rollo, pp. 30-31. See Minute Resolution dated November 18, 2020.

28.Id. at 32-37; 38-42.

29. See People v. Moner, 827 Phil. 42, 53 (2018).

30. See People v. Hilario, 823 Phil. 580, 604 (2018).

31.People v. Dejos, G.R. 237423, October 12, 2020.

32. Ca rollo, pp. 53-54. See Brief for the Accused-Appellant.

33.Id. at 54.

34. See Lapi v. People, G.R. No. 210731, February 13, 2019.

35. G.R. 234686, June 10, 2019.

36. Section 5, Rule 113, Rules on Criminal Procedure provides:

Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

xxx xxx xxx

37. See People v. Agulay, 588 Phil. 247, 272 (2008).

38. CA rollo, pp. 55-57. See Brief for the Accused-Appellant.

39.People v. Tanes, G.R. No. 240596, April 3, 2019.

40. Article II, Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165.

41. See People v. Galisim, G.R. No. 231305, September 11, 2019.

42.People v. Maralit, 838 Phil. 191, 207 (2018), citing People v. Kamad, 624 Phil. 289, 304 (2010).

43. TSN, April 24, 2018, p. 19. CA rollo, p. 84.

44.Id. at 21. Id. at 84-85.

45. CA rollo, p. 85.

46.Id.

47. TSN, February 16, 2017, p. 5. Id.

48. Records, pp. 65-73. See Pre-trial Order dated February 16, 2017. Rollo, p. 8, See CA Decision, p. 6.

49.Rollo, pp. 4-7. See CA Decision.

50. See People v. Amago, G.R. No. 227739, January 15, 2020.

51. See Medina, Jr. v. People, 724 Phil. 226, 237 (2014).

52.People v. Arago, Jr., G.R. No. 233833, February 20, 2019.

53. G.R. No. 242692, July 13, 2020.

54. SEC. 13. Possession of Dangerous Drugs during Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings. — Any person found possessing any dangerous drug during a party, or at a social gathering or meeting, or in the proximate company of at least two (2) persons, shall suffer the maximum penalties provided for in Section 11 of this Act, regard less of the quantity and purity of such dangerous drugs.

55. G.R. No. 222187, March 25, 2019.