People v. Mijares y Zorilla

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 249146. March 2, 2022.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. SAMMY MIJARES y ZORILLA, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 2, 2022 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 249146 (People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee vs. Sammy Mijares y Zorilla, accused-appellant).

This is an appeal from the May 24, 2019 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11009, which affirmed the March 14, 2018 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 87 (RTC) in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-16-10767-CR. The RTC found Sammy Mijares y Zorilla (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

Antecedents

Accused-appellant was charged with violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 in an Information 3 dated September 26, 2016, the accusatory portion of which reads:

That on or about the 22nd day of September, 2016, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous drug, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully sell, dispense, deliver, transport, distribute or act as broker in the said transaction, zero point zero three (0.03) gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, with markings "RT-SM-9-22-16," a dangerous drug, in violation of said law.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 4

Upon his arraignment on October 10, 2016, 5 accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. After pre-trial was terminated, trial ensued.

Version of the Prosecution

The prosecution presented Police Chief Inspector Rhea Fe Alviar (PCI Alviar), Police Officer III Jev Melendez (PO3 Melendez), Police Officer II Rommel Tabinas (PO2 Tabinas) and Police Officer I Brian Emilson Celeste 6(PO1 Celeste) as witnesses. Their combined testimonies tend to establish the following:

On September 21, 2016, PO2 Tabinas and PO1 Celeste were assigned at the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special Operations Task Group (SAID-SOTG) of Novaliches Police Station (PS-4), Quezon City Police District. At around 8:00 p.m. that day, a confidential informant (CI) reported to Team Leader Police Senior Inspector Cyril Dagusen (PSINSP Dagusen) that accused-appellant was engaged in illegal drug activities. Thus, PSINSP Dagusen formed a buy-bust team. He provided the poseur-buyer, PO2 Tabinas, with two (2) P100.00 bills with serial numbers GH074863 and XV051180, which the latter marked with his initials "RT" and "RT1," respectively. Another member of the team, PO1 Mark Nino Canicon, prepared the Coordination Report with Control Number 10001-092016-0571, as well as the pre-operation report. 7

The following day, at around 5:15 p.m., the team proceeded to Barangay Sta. Monica, Novaliches, Quezon City. PO2 Tabinas stayed with the CI who contacted accused-appellant. A few minutes later, accused-appellant arrived and the CI introduced PO2 Tabinas as the buyer of shabu worth P200.00 for personal use. Accused-appellant asked for the payment of the shabu. PO2 Tabinas then gave accused-appellant the P200.00 marked money. In exchange, accused took one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet from his pocket and handed it to PO2 Tabinas. Once the transaction was consummated, PO2 Tabinas raised his left hand, which was the pre-arranged signal to apprehend accused-appellant. Accused-appellant was arrested and apprised of his constitutional rights. PO2 Tabinas thereafter introduced himself as a police officer and instructed accused-appellant to empty his pockets to which he complied. PO2 Tabinas recovered the P200.00 marked money and another heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet. 8

At the place of incident, PO2 Tabinas marked the first plastic sachet he received as "RT-SM-9-22-16" and the second plastic sachet as "RT-SM1-9-22-16." Thereafter, they proceeded to the police station where the inventory was conducted in the presence of accused-appellant, as well as Nelson Alcantara (Alcantara), the Barangay Captain of Sta. Monica, and Jun Tobias (Tobias), a Saksi tabloid reporter. Alcantara and Tobias signed the inventory form, along with PO2 Tabinas and PO1 Celeste, but accused-appellant refused to sign it. Afterwards, PO2 Tabinas turned over the seized items to duty investigator PO3 Melendez who, in turn, prepared the request for laboratory examination of the seized items, requests for drug test and physical examination of accused-appellant, and his arrest/booking sheet. He also took the affidavit of arrest of PO2 Tabinas and PO1 Celeste, and prepared the referral letter addressed to the City Prosecutor's Office. PO3 Melendez then turned over the seized items to PO2 Tabinas, who then delivered the seized items, along with the requests for laboratory examination, drug test examination and physical examination, to PCI Alviar of the Quezon City Crime Laboratory Office. PCI Alviar conducted the forensic examination and prepared Chemistry Report No. D-1413-16, which confirmed that the white crystalline substance contained in the plastic sachets confiscated and bought from accused-appellant yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. PCI Alviar also prepared Chemistry Report No. QCDT-2807-16, which likewise confirmed that the urine sample taken from accused-appellant tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. 9

The parties stipulated on the testimonies of PCI Alviar, PO3 Melendez and PO1 Celeste. The stipulations as to the testimony of PCI Alviar are as follows:

1. The qualification and expertise of the witness;

2. That she is presently assigned at QCPD Crime Laboratory;

3. That on September 22, 2016, she reported for work and personally received a Request for Laboratory Examination and Drug Test Examination together with the subject specimen as stated in the information;

4. That she conducted a qualitative laboratory examination on the subject specimen and reduced her finding in a Chemistry Report No. D-1413-16 dated September 22, 2016, and Chemistry Report No. QCDT-2807-16.

5. That the said witness will be able to identify a Request for Laboratory Examination, Request for Drug Test Examination and Chemistry Reports subject of this case;

6. That the witness will be able to identify her signatures on the mentioned documents and the signatures of approving and noting authorities therein;

7. That the witness will be able to identify the subject specimen turned over to her for examination as appearing in Chemistry Report Nos. D-1413-16 and QCDT-2807-16;

8. That after examination, the witness sealed the specimen and turned them over to the Evidence Custodian;

9. That the subject specimen was already turned over to RTC Branch 224 due to another pending case against the accused;

10. That the witness could also identify the Chain of Custody Form and her signature appearing therein; [and]

11. That the witness has no personal knowledge as to the fact of arrest of the accused and the fact of recovery of the seized items. 10

Version of the Defense

Accused-appellant testified that, on September 21, 2016, he was with his son at Mayang Pula St., Quezon City, when he was arrested by a certain "Altesa" for unknown reasons. He was brought to PS-4, where he was asked if he knew anyone selling illegal drugs. When he denied any knowledge about it, the police officers hurt him but he could not do anything about it because he was afraid. 11

The RTC Ruling

In its March 14, 2018 Decision, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. It held that all of the elements of the crime charged were sufficiently established by the prosecution. It further ruled that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized evidence were preserved as the chain of custody had been faithfully observed. The RTC adjudged that PO2 Tabinas' testimony sufficiently showed that the illegal drugs subject of the sale were personally recovered by him from accused-appellant. According to the RTC, the prosecution was able to sufficiently explain the procedural lapses and to discharge its burden of proving that the identity and integrity of the seized evidence had been preserved despite the procedural lapses. 12

Further, the RTC gave no credence to accused-appellant's defense of denial because it was self-serving and was outweighed by the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. 13 The fallo reads:

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, Judgment is hereby rendered finding Sammy Mijares y Zorilla GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of PhP500,000.00.

SO ORDERED. 14

Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA.

The CA Ruling

In its May 24, 2019 Decision, the CA affirmed accused-appellant's conviction. It ruled that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. It gave full credence to the witnesses' positive identification of accused-appellant and their narration of the buy-bust operation. The CA affirmed the finding of the RTC that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized evidence had been preserved despite noncompliance with Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165. It opined that the presence of the named representatives in Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, i.e., an elected public official and a representative of the Department of Justice (DOJ) or of the press, is not necessary during the marking of the evidence. It held that the prosecution was still able to account for all the links in the chain of custody. Moreover, the CA underscored that accused-appellant failed to present clear and convincing proof to overturn the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties of the buy-bust team. The fallo reads:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated March 14, 2018 rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 87, Quezon City is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED. 15

Hence, this appeal.

Issues

Accused-appellant raised the following errors:

I.

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE ILLEGAL SALE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS DESPITE THE POLICE OFFICERS' FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, AS AMENDED.

II.

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE ILLEGAL SALE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT A CLEAR AND UNBROKEN CHAIN OF CUSTODY OVER THE ALLEGEDLY CONFISCATED ITEM AND THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO ESTABLISH ITS EVIDENTIARY VALUE AND INTEGRITY. 16

In its January 8, 2020 Resolution, 17 the Court required the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired. In its March 10, 2020 Manifestation In Lieu of a Supplemental Brief, 18 the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) manifested that it would no longer file a supplemental brief considering that the guilt of accused-appellant was exhaustively discussed in its appellee's brief and no new issues were raised. In his February 28, 2020 Manifestation In Lieu of a Supplemental Brief, 19 accused-appellant averred that he would no longer file a supplemental brief as he would adopt his Brief for the Accused-Appellant dated October 26, 2018, as the same had adequately discussed all the matters pertinent to his defense.

In his Appellant's Brief 20 filed before the CA, accused-appellant claims that there was failure on the part of the police officers to comply or to exert any genuine and sufficient effort to comply with the requirements of Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. The seizure and marking of the seized drugs were made without the required presence of the insulating witnesses. It was also not proven that accused-appellant was present during the marking of the seized evidence. Finally, accused-appellant contends that there were breaks in the chain of custody, specifically in the first and fourth links.

In its Appellee's Brief 21 filed before the CA, the OSG urges the Court to affirm the challenged decision of the RTC. It insists that the prosecution duly established the elements of the crime charged. It counters that there was an unbroken chain of custody — from PO2 Tabinas' recovery of the plastic sachets from accused-appellant, to the markings he placed thereon after accused-appellant's arrest, to the request for laboratory examination made by PO3 Melendez, to the turnover by PO2 Tabinas and PO3 Melendez of the seized evidence to the crime laboratory, and to the examination thereof by PCI Alviar which yielded a positive result for shabu. According to the OSG, the integrity and identity of the seized evidence were sufficiently preserved by the police officers who handled the confiscated plastic sachets.

The Court's Ruling

It is a well-established rule that an appeal in criminal cases throws the whole case open for review. 22 Thus, the appellate court has the competence to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law. 23

After careful examination, the Court finds the appeal meritorious.

To sustain a conviction for the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the necessary elements are: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. 24 It is essential that a transaction or sale be proved to have actually taken place coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of the corpus delicti. 25

It is essential that the identity of the seized drug be established with moral certainty, and it must be proven with exactitude that the substance bought during the buy-bust operation is exactly the same substance offered in evidence before the court. 26 This requirement is known as the chain of custody rule under R.A. No. 9165 created to safeguard doubts concerning the identity of the seized drugs. 27

Chain of custody means the duly recorded, authorized movements, and custody of the seized drugs at each state, from the moment of confiscation to the receipt at the forensic laboratory for examination until these are presented to the court. 28

As part of the chain of custody procedure, the law requires that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation of the same. 29 The law further requires that the said inventory and photography be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of R.A. No. 9165 by R.A. No. 10640, 30 a representative from the media AND the DOJ, and any elected public official; 31 or (b) if after the amendment of R.A. No. 9165 by R.A. No. 10640, an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service (NPS)32OR the media. 33 The law requires the presence of these witnesses primarily "to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence." 34

In the instant case, since the offense charged was committed on September 22, 2016, the provisions of Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, shall apply. Thus, the two required witnesses must be present during the inventory and taking of photographs.

Noncompliance with Sec. 21 of

In the instant case, the buy-bust team committed several patent procedural lapses in the conduct of the seizure and handling of the seized drugs — which created reasonable doubt as to the identity and integrity of the drugs and, consequently, reasonable doubt as to the guilt of accused. 35

At the outset, it must be pointed out that the inventory produced by the prosecution was irregularly conducted. Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 10640 requires that the copies of the inventory be signed by the following persons: the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, an elected public official and a representative of the NPS or the media.

The Inventory of Seized/Confiscated Item/Property 36 itself reveals that the document was not signed by accused-appellant or by his counsel or representative. Upon perusal of the records of the instant case, PO2 Tabinas provided conflicting statements as to whether accused-appellant was made to sign the inventory:

Q: Witness is pointing to a photograph previously marked as Exhibit "M" for prosecution's evidence. Was the accused made to sign in the inventory, Mr. Witness?

A: No, sir.

Q: Why?

A: I do not know why he was not made to sign, sir.

Q: However, do you have any personal knowledge, Mr. Witness, that the accused was made to [sign] in this inventory or was requested to sign in the inventory?

A: We asked him to sign that inventory sir, but he refused to sign. 37

When first asked if accused-appellant was made to sign the inventory, PO2 Tabinas answered in the negative. He admitted that he did not know why accused-appellant was not required to sign the inventory. But when asked if he personally knew whether accused-appellant was made to sign the inventory, PO2 Tabinas then admitted that they did ask accused-appellant to sign the inventory but accused-appellant allegedly refused to do so. PO2 Tabinas' inconsistent recollection of whether accused-appellant was made to sign the inventory casts serious doubt on the inventory itself.

The law requires accused-appellant or his representative or counsel to sign the inventory. However, in the instant case, it is uncertain whether accused-appellant was even made to sign the inventory. PO2 Tabinas could have explained this defect during his testimony in open court but, instead, he gave conflicting statements, making the defect in the inventory inexcusable. If indeed accused-appellant refused to sign the inventory, the police officers could have just simply indicated such refusal in the inventory receipt itself, but they failed to do so.

Evidently, this constitutes as a violation of the mandatory requirement of Sec. 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165, as amended. As a general rule, compliance with the chain of custody procedure is strictly enjoined as the same has been regarded "not merely as a procedural technicality but as a matter of substantive law." 38 This is because "[t]he law has been crafted by Congress as safety precautions to address potential police abuses, especially considering that the penalty imposed may be life imprisonment." 39

In People v. Banding, 40 accused-appellant did not sign the inventory receipt, which cast doubt that the dangerous drug allegedly seized from him was the same drug delivered to the investigating officer for documentation. 41 The accused therein was eventually acquitted.

Saving clause is not applicable.

Nevertheless, the Court acknowledges that strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure may not always be possible. 42 The third and final portion of Sec. 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, refers to the saving clause which states that:

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.

This portion was initially found in the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165. However, in the advent of R.A. No 10640, it is now included in the text of the law. While the chain of custody has been a critical issue leading to acquittals in drug cases, the Court has nevertheless held that noncompliance with the prescribed procedures does not necessarily result in the conclusion that the identity of the seized drugs has been compromised so that an acquittal should follow. 43 The last portion of Sec. 21 (1) provides a saving mechanism to ensure that not every case of noncompliance will irretrievably prejudice the prosecution's case. 44 Accordingly, before the prosecution can invoke the saving clause, they must satisfy the two requisites:

1. The existence of "justifiable grounds" allowing departure from the rule on strict compliance; and

2. The integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team.

In this case, the Court finds that the saving clause cannot be invoked by the prosecution. The first prong of the saving clause was not satisfied. The prosecution did not provide a justifiable ground for the rule on strict compliance under Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended. As stated earlier, the prosecution presented a witness who gave conflicting testimony on why accused-appellant was not able to sign the certificate of inventory. Manifestly, this is not a justifiable ground contemplated by the law.

Likewise, the second prong was not satisfied. It requires that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items be properly preserved by the apprehending team. According to People v. Adobar, 45 the integrity of the seized illegal drugs, despite noncompliance with Sec. 21, requires establishing the four links in the chain of custody: 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. 46

In this case, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were not preserved as early as the first link. The marking of the seized items was conducted without the presence of an elected public official and a representative from the media or the NPS. In People v. Sarabia, 47 the Court explained that the authorities have the duty of securing the presence of the required witnesses during the marking of the allegedly seized drug, considering that the marking of the evidence is an integral part of the physical inventory, to wit:

The marking of the evidence is an indispensable aspect of the physical inventory process. Marking the seized drug specimen is crucial as it establishes the link between the specimen seized during the buy-bust operation and the specimen that is examined and later presented as evidence during the trial. In short, the marking of the seized specimen is the definitive process undertaken by the authorities to establish the identity of the drug specimen retrieved from the accused. Therefore, with the marking of the evidence being an integral part of the physical inventory, in accordance with Section 21 of RA 9165, the authorities have the duty of securing the presence of the required witnesses during the marking of the allegedly seized plastic sachets. 48

To emphasize, "the non-presence of the witnesses during the marking of the subject evidence puts into doubt the identity of the allegedly retrieved drug specimen." 49

The absence of the aforementioned required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible. However, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses must therefore be adduced. 50

In this case, however, the prosecution offered no justification for the absence of the insulating witnesses during the marking of the seized items. The prosecution did not even recognize such procedural lapse or give any plausible explanation on why the apprehending team did not conduct the marking in the presence of the insulating witnesses. Neither did the prosecution prove that the police officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of the required witnesses prior to the conduct of the buy-bust. By failing to follow even the basic witness requirement under Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 10640, the police officers cannot be presumed to have regularly exercised their duties during the buy-bust operation.

The apprehending officers' noncompliance with the foregoing requirement cannot be cured by the subsequent presence of the barangay official and media representative during the inventory and photographing at the police station. In People v. Castillo, 51 the Court held that the presence of third-party witnesses only during the subsequent physical inventory and photographing proves futile as it reduces them to passive automatons, utilized merely to lend hollow legitimacy by belatedly affixing signatures on final inventory documents despite lacking authentic knowledge on the items confronting them. 52

Further, there was also a gap in the fourth link. The last link involves the submission of the seized drugs by the forensic chemist to the court when presented as evidence in the criminal case. 53 In this case, the parties merely stipulated on PCI Alviar's expertise and qualifications, delivery, submission, and receipt of the specimens for laboratory examination and the results thereof. PCI Alviar failed to testify on how the illegal drugs were safeguarded, if at all, after she received the same and following her qualitative examination thereof, and prior to her appearance in court. It was also stipulated that the specimen was turned over to the evidence custodian. However, the custodian's testimony was never offered in the course of the trial. There was also no stipulation on how the evidence custodian preserved the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.

Absent any testimony on the management, storage, and preservation of the illegal drugs allegedly seized after their qualitative examination, the fourth link in the chain of custody could not be reasonably established. 54 This casts serious doubts on the identity and the integrity of the corpus delicti of the crime charged. In Mallillin v. People, 55 the Court explained:

As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. 56

In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that there were significant gaps in the chain of custody to establish the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. Given the procedural lapses, serious uncertainty hangs over the identification of the corpus delicti that the prosecution introduced into evidence. 57 Consequently, the prosecution's failure to justify such lapses entitles the accused to an acquittal based on reasonable doubt. 58

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The May 24, 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11009, which affirmed the March 14, 2018 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 87, in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-16-10767-CR, finding accused-appellant Sammy Mijares y Zorilla guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is REVERSED and SETASIDE. Accused-appellant Sammy Mijares y Zorilla is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ORDERED to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE accused-appellant from detention, unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason, and to INFORM this Court of his action hereon within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.

Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 3-21; penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo, with Associate Justices Danton Q. Bueser and Rafael Antonio M. Santos, concurring.

2. Records, pp. 96-102; penned by Presiding Judge Aurora A. Hernandez-Calledo.

3.Id. at 1-2.

4.Id. at 1.

5.Id. at 27.

6. Also referred to as PO1 Bryan Emerson Celeste in some parts of the rollo and records (see rollo, p. 4; records, p. 98).

7.Rollo, p. 4.

8.Id. at 5.

9.Id. at 5-6.

10. Records, p. 67.

11.Rollo, p. 8.

12. Records, pp. 99-101.

13.Id. at 101-102.

14.Id. at 102.

15.Rollo, p. 21.

16. CA rollo, p. 26.

17.Rollo, pp. 29-30.

18.Id. at 39-41.

19.Id. at 34-36.

20. CA rollo, pp. 22-32.

21.Id. at 55-68.

22.People v. Ygoy, G.R. No. 215712, August 7, 2019, 912 SCRA 420, 431.

23.Cunanan v. People, G.R. No. 237116, November 12, 2018, 885 SCRA 321, 333.

24.People v. Roble, 663 Phil. 147, 157 (2011).

25.Id.

26.People v. Alon-Alon, G.R. No. 237803, November 27, 2019, 926 SCRA 256, 263-264, citing People v. Bartolini, 791 Phil. 626, 634 (2016).

27.People v. Climaco, 687 Phil. 593, 604 (2012), citing People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 226 (2015).

28. Section 1 (b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002.

29.Matabilas v. People, G.R. No. 243615, November 11, 2019, 925 SCRA 336, 345.

30. 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." As the Court noted in People v. Gutierrez (842 Phil. 681 [2018]) and Matabilas v. People(supra), R.A. No. 10640 was approved on July 15, 2014. Under Section 5 thereof, it shall "take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation." R.A. No. 10640 was published on July 23, 2014 in The Philippine Star (Vol. XXVIII, No. 359, Philippine Star Metro Section, p. 21) and Manila Bulletin (Vol. 499, No. 23; World News Section, p. 6). Thus, R.A. No. 10640 appears to have become effective on August 7, 2014.

31. See Section 21 (1) and (2), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR.

32. Which falls under the DOJ. (See Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1275), entitled "REORGANIZING THE PROSECUTION STAFF OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE OFFICES OF THE PROVINCIAL AND CITY FISCALS, REGIONALIZING THE PROSECUTION SERVICE, AND CREATING THE NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE" [April 11, 1978] and Section 3 of R.A. No. 10071, entitled "AN ACT STRENGTHENING AND RATIONALIZING THE NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE" otherwise known as the "PROSECUTION SERVICE ACT OF 2010" [lapsed into law on April 8, 2010].

33. See Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640.

34. See Matabilas v. People, supra note 29 at 346-347.

35.People v. Santos, G.R. No. 218579, December 5, 2019.

36. Records, p. 39.

37. TSN, January 29, 2018, p. 19.

38.Fernandez v. People, G.R. No. 254320, July 5, 2021.

39.Id.

40. G.R. No. 233470, August 14, 2019, 914 SCRA 197.

41.Id. at 217.

42.Fernandez v. People, supra note 38.

43. See People v. Denoman, 612 Phil. 1165, 1178 (2009).

44.Id.

45. 832 Phil. 731 (2018).

46.Id. at 763.

47. G.R. No. 243190, August 28, 2019, 916 SCRA 377.

48.Id. at 406.

49.Id.

50.People v. Baptista, G.R. No. 225783, August 20, 2018, 878 SCRA 124, 138, citing People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024, 1052-1053 (2012).

51. G.R. No. 238339, August 7, 2019, 912 SCRA 493.

52.Id. at 518.

53.People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 237 (2015).

54.People v. Ubungen, 836 Phil. 888, 902 (2018).

55. 576 Phil. 576 (2008).

56.Id. at 587.

57.People v. Bangcola, G.R. No. 237802, March 18, 2019, 897 SCRA 330, 356.

58.People v. Abdula, G.R. No. 212192, November 21, 2018, 886 SCRA 383, 413.